Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

Fishguard and Goodwick Urban District Council Bill [Lords].

Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Cowes) Bill.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Keyhaven) Bill.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Whitley Bay) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Essex) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:


Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Heathfield and District Water) Bill.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Maryport) Bill.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Paignton) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

East Lothian County Council Bill [Lords],

London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill,

As amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries relating to a Scheme submitted by the River Stour (Kent) Catchment Board under section four (1) (b) of the Land Drainage Act, 1930," presented by Mr. Elliot; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

EDUCATION SERVICES.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I beg to present a Petition signed by over 3,000 students in training colleges in all parts of the country praying that the school-leaving age may be raised to 15 with maintenance for the extra year: that the reorganisation of the schools may be completed, including the provision of facilities for practical work and for specialised teaching; that the size of classes may be limited, in elementary schools to 40, and in secondary schools to 30; that qualified teachers, paid at Burnham rates, may be employed in all junior instruction centres; that the maintenance grants for pupils in secondary schools outside the London County Council area may be raised to the level of maintenance grants within that area, and that maintenance grants for girls may be raised to the level of those for boys.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MILK MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of milk depots in Scotland now owned by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board; and what is the average number of gallons handled per month at these depots?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The number of milk depots now owned by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board is 18, of which three are not meantime being operated, two are used as cheese-conditioning stores and one is leased to another concern. In addition, one depot operated by the board is held on lease. The average quantity of milk handled at these depots per month during the year 1935 was 1,651,000 gallons.

HOUSING.

Mr. BARR: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses completed in Scotland with State assistance from 1919 till 31st December, 1935, or the last available date; and the total amount of State subsidy paid in respect thereof?

Sir G. COLLINS: The total number of houses completed in Scotland with State assistance from 1919 till 31st March last is 200,961, and the total amount of State subsidy paid up to that date is £21,235,550.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the progress that is being made with house building for the working class in Scotland at the moment?

Sir G. COLLINS: The local authorities have been very active in this matter and their efforts to remove overcrowding are being driven forward with success.

Mr. MOREING: What does the subsidy amount to per head of the taxpaying population?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which ought to be on the Paper.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether

he will cause inquiry to be made on the question of juvenile crime in the Maryhill division of Glasgow?

Sir G. COLLINS: My attention has already been drawn to the observations on the subject of juvenile delinquency contained in the annual report of the Chief Constable of Glasgow for 1935, and I am in communication with the Corporation on the subject.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Will the Secretary of State keep in mind the fact that in this division they have paid in juvenile fines two or three times the amount of any other division in Glasgow?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will bear that point in mind when I receive the report.

Mr. LEONARD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the observations, at Dumfries, of His Majesty's inspector of constabulary regarding the increase in juvenile delinquency; and whether he will state the age level at which the increase in delinquency referred to was most pronounced?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir. The returns for 1935 show an increase in the total number of young persons found guilty of offences last year as compared with 1934, which is most pronounced in the 14 to 17 age group.

NON-GRADUATE SCHOOL TEACHERS.

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of post-1919 non-graduate school teachers, male and female, employed by the Glasgow Corporation; the annual cost of raising these teachers to full salary; and the names of any local authorities that have raised their non-graduate post-1919 teachers to full salary?

Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part of the question is 31 men, 526 women; the annual cost of raising the salaries of these teachers to the scales for pre-1919 non-graduates would be about £10,000 a year initially, and £40,000 a year ultimately. One education authority (Renfrewshire) has raised the non-graduate teachers as a whole to the graduate scales.

Mr. MCGOVERN: Has the Secretary of State any power to influence local authorities to raise the salaries of these


men and women who have served for a very long period, and if he has that power, will he exercise it?

Sir G. COLLINS: The local salary scales are within the discretion of the education authorities, and unless I receive grave complaints, I must leave it to them.

POLICE (COATBRIDGE).

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the names and rank of the police officers who have been suspended from the Coatbridge police force and the reasons for suspension; whether his attention has been drawn to the attempt to set up an inquiry by the chief constable, who proposed to act as chairman, to inquire into the allegations made against himself; and whether he will set up an independent judicial inquiry with a view to allaying the unrest and suspicion in the Coatbridge police force?

Sir G. COLLINS: My attention has been drawn to this case. I am informed that the police officers concerned have raised an action for suspension and interdict against the chief constable in the Court of Session and that an interim interdict was granted on the 11th instant. In the circumstances I cannot make any statement at present.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the right hon. Gentleman not himself institute an inquiry into the whole proceeding?

Sir G. COLLINS: Not until the judgment has been given, and until further facts are forthcoming.

Mr. BARR: Referring to the original question, may I ask whether Coatbridge has been annexed by the Shettleston Division of Glasgow, and whether the hon. Member might not be directed to confer upon this matter with the hon. Member for Coatbridge?

DESTRUCTION OF FISH.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at Fraserburgh, on the 15th instant, 350 crans of fresh herring were thrown back into the sea owing to the glutting of the market; whether he is aware that there is a large percentage of the people,

especially in areas where there has been prolonged unemployment, underfed and undernourished; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to facilitate the distribution of this surplus food among the needy sections of our population?

Sir G. COLLINS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. According to inquiries made by the Department of Health there would not appear to be evidence to support the suggestion that a large percentage of people in Scotland are suffering from underfeeding or under-nourishment. I do, however, deplore the destruction of fish, and the Herring Industry Board are giving further consideration to the problem of organising special measures for the disposal of occasional gluts of herring in consultation with the Commissioners for the Special Areas and the Food Council.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is not the Secretary of State aware that every Thursday in this country there are thousands of women who have nothing whatever to eat because they cannot get any scraps on the Thursday and have to wait for unemployment pay on the Friday?

Sir G. COLLINS: That statement is not borne out by the evidence given to me by my officers and which I have given to the House this afternoon.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: It is borne out by the people who cannot get anything to eat.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where his officers differ from the conclusions arrived at by Sir John Orr and the other officials of the Rowatt Institute regarding under-feeding and under-nourishment in Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: That, I think, would be a more suitable matter for debate in this House than for dealing with by question and answer. I have given the House certain information that I officially possess on the subject.

TENANCY, SANDYHILLS.

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Second Scottish National Housing Company have terminated the tenancy, for 28th May, of a steel house at


Sandyhills, in which Mr. James Kirkpatrick, 58, Glenalmond Street, resided since May, 1931, because he has lost his situation; that they ordered the sequestration and sale of his furniture because he was one month in arrears of his February rent, which has now been paid; whether he is aware that Mr. Kirkpatrick served in the Army from 3rd September, 1914, to 28th January, 1919; that Mr. Kirkpatrick's case was so strong that the Glasgow Corporation housing department have, after inquiry, consented to offer him a house in one of their housing schemes; and whether he will arrange to have the eviction order cancelled?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am informed that the Second Scottish National Housing Company terminated Mr. Kirkpatrick's tenancy of the steel house at Sandyhills occupied by him since May, 1932, because of his repeated failures, despite warnings, to pay his rent at the proper time. He was believed by the company to be in regular employment. A small debt summons was taken out on 27th March to recover rent of £7 due at 15th February, but the amount due was paid on 31st March before the case was called in court. At the same time a summons was taken out to secure payment in respect of the quarter's rent due at 15th May. This rent was however paid punctually, and no further action was taken. Mr. Kirkpatrick left the steel house at Sandyhills last week, having obtained tenancy of a house from Glasgow Corporation.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is the Secretary of State aware that over that period of 5½ years the rent of the house was never more than a month in arrears at any time, and that the reason given by the house factor for the eviction was that the man had lost his job and had no guarantee of being able to pay the rent? Does the Secretary of State not think it a serious state of affairs that Government money supplied for the building of houses should be used for the purpose of evicting a man because he has lost his job, after he served over four years in the Army during the War?

Sir G. COLLINS: Government money is not used for building houses from which to evict persons under the terms indicated by the hon. Member. This particular tenant was behindhand with his rent on several occasions, and, in view

of that, those responsible for the houses took the action they did.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Glasgow Corporation, after inquiry, were prepared to give this man a house, showing the justice of the man's claim, and, apart from that, will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that in future no tenant will be evicted from a house merely because he is a week or two in arrears with his rent?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have made inquiries into this case, and I am informed that this particular individual had been warned and had refused to pay the rent at the proper time on several occasions. I have no information as to the terms on which the Glasgow Corporation let houses.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a private factor would be far more lenient in a case like this; and will he give orders to this company that they should, at least, be as generous in their treatment of their tenants as ordinary factors?

Sir G. COLLINS: The information which I have does not show that this particular company, which is a private company, acted more harshly than the ordinary factor would have acted in a case of this kind.

Mr. McGOVERN: I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity.

FASCIST MEETING, EDINBURGH.

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the organised transportation of gangs of Fascists from English centres into Edinburgh on 15th instant; whether he has received reports from the police of the violence and bloodshed in connection with the meeting in the Usher Hall attended by these Fascists; and whether he will seek powers to interfere with any future concentration of these organised gangs when there is reason to anticipate a breach of the peace arising in consequence?

Sir G. COLLINS: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that the meeting referred to was attended by a party of Fascists in uniform most of


whom came from England. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given yesterday to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). As regards the last part of the question, I am advised that under the existing law the police are entitled to enter and remain in a hall during a meeting, if they are requested by the promoters to do so; also, if they have reason to believe that a breach of the law is being committed; or further, if they have reasonable grounds for apprehending that a breach of the law is about to be committed. Further powers to prevent or deal with any breach of the peace arising in the circumstances referred to are, in my view, unnecessary.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that he does not consider it necessary to seek powers from this House to prevent the organised transportation from Middlesbrough to Edinburgh of a large number of these Fascist gangs, which resulted in bloodshed, turbulence and violence in Edinburgh; and are we to understand that he does not propose to take steps to prevent a repetition of this sort of thing?

Sir G. COLLINS: Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are implicit in a democratic country, and in view of the statement which I have made as to the law of the land in Scotland, the powers which the police possess at present, as I am advised, seem amply sufficient to protect the interests of His Majesty's subjects.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Inasmuch as I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman's opinion about free speech and am not trying to prevent it in any way, will he be good enough to answer my question? Will he not take steps, or ask for powers, to stop the organised transportation in this way of gangs of violence merchants?

Sir G. COLLINS: I naturally deplore any action by any section of the community which leads to disorder, but, as I say, there is implicit in every democratic country that freedom of assembly which the right hon. Gentleman apparently wishes to restrict, and as I am advised at present further powers seem to be unnecessary.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that in Glasgow it is very difficult to get a hearing?

HON. MEMBERS: It was not in Glasgow.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

RETAIL PRICES.

Mr. CHATER: asked the Secretary for Mines, whether he is aware that domestic consumers of coal are now paying considerably more than an additional 1s. per ton as compared with a year ago; and whether the miners are actually receiving increased wages commensurate with the increased prices paid by consumers?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I am aware that, generally speaking, the retail price of domestic coal has been raised by more than 1s. per ton as compared with a year ago. I have no reason to believe that the increases do not in the main correspond with increases in pithead prices. Increased pithead prices operate to augment miners' wages in accordance with the usual machinery of the district wage agreements.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Having regard to the very large increase which has taken place in coal prices already, is it necessary to have these selling schemes to raise prices still higher?

HOURS AND WAGES.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary for Mines, whether, in view of the strong feeling among the miners for the restoration of the seven-hour day and of the opportunity it will provide for increased employment, he will take steps to restore the seven-hour day with a national guaranteed minimum wage to protect the miners' wages?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. GALLACHER: Arising out of that informative answer, would the Minister not consider the desirability of bringing in a Mines Bill which would give satisfaction to the miners, in view of the fact that the recent Bill had to be dropped because it gave satisfaction to nobody?

SELLING SCHEMES.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Secretary of Mines whether he will consider, when introducing legislation dealing with reorganisation and selling agencies, arranging to have on the boards of control representatives of the Miners' Federation?

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will undertake to secure adequate representation of the mineworkers on the committees or boards that will be responsible for the administration of the proposed central and district selling schemes for the coal-mining industry?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The proposed selling schemes do not provide specifically for the representation of the mineworkers. I would point out that no legislation is necessary to give effect to these schemes.

Mr. TINKER: Seeing that there is so much contention now about the matter not being dealt with properly, could the Secretary for Mines not see his way to allow representatives of the Miners Federation to be put on these bodies?

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: In view of the importance of this scheme for the miners would he not permit this representation in order to secure that the increased prices are brought into the ascertainments and thus enable the miners' wages to be raised?

Captain CROOKSHANK: That raises a different issue from this specific question. The district executive boards which have dealt with various schemes under the Act of 1930 have no direct representation of the mineworkers on them and that Act was carried on the motion of the Labour Government of that time.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he proposes to have consultations with the Mineworkers' Federation in regard to the proposed central and district selling schemes before submitting them to Parliament?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The necessary draft orders in relation to the district selling schemes have now been laid before Parliament. As I have already indicated in this House, I am willing to meet representatives of the Mineworkers' Federation to discuss matters of this kind, if they so desire.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: In view of the fact that these selling schemes were part of the settlement made between the Miners' Federation, the mineowners and the Secretary for Mines recently, does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman thing he was under a obligation to consult the Miners' Federation before these schemes were introduced to Parliament?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I think the hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that a Joint Consultative Committee was set up, and they seem to be exactly the people with whom this question ought to be discussed.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Are we to understand, then, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consult with the Joint Committee?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I think there is a question about that later on.

Mr. MUFF: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman receive a deputation from the Association of Municipal Corporations?

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will undertake to secure provision for the assistance of the exporting districts in the proposed central and district selling schemes for the coal-mining industry?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The draft orders for the Scotland, South Wales, Northumberland and Durham districts, which were laid before Parliament a week ago, include a provision which would enable the executive board for each of those districts, if it so desires, to collect levies for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal produced in the district. The draft orders for other districts do not contain such a provision and I understand that the representations to be made to me in respect of the central scheme are unlikely to do so. I have not yet received the formal representations covering amendments of the central scheme.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: In view of the fact that unless there is such assistance a very large number of men employed in the exporting districts cannot hope for a wage increase, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman exercise his interest and bring his authority to bear to compel the inclusion of such provision in those schemes?

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the proposed central and district selling schemes contain a provision for the payment of compensation to the owners of collieries that may be closed after the schemes become operative; and whether he will undertake to see that provision is made for the payment of compensation to the displaced workpeople.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The district selling schemes will not provide for the payment of compensation to the owners of mines that are closed down. The second part of the question does not therefore arise. The majority of the schemes will, however, contain a provision that if any owner, having made reasonable attempts to obtain business, does not secure his proper share of the trade of the district, he will receive compensation out of moneys provided by contributions paid by those owners who do more than their proper share of the trade.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will consider, when he brings in the Bill dealing with selling agencies in the coal-mining industry, placing on the board of control representatives from the consumers?

Captain CROOKSHANK: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to an earlier question, no Bill is necessary for the establishment of organised selling schemes in the coal industry.

Mr. TINKER: Does that mean that consumers can now have a say on the board?

Captain CROOKSHANK: It means exactly what it says, that no legislation is required in this matter.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be a little clearer in his replies, and treat us fairly, and not put us off in that way. Does the reply mean that consumers can have a voice on the board?

Captain CROOKSHANK: If the hon. Gentleman means the selling board, the consumers are not concerned with that. What the answer does mean is that the committees of investigation, which are bodies set up under the Act of 1930, have as half their membership representatives of the consumers.

OUTPUT.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary for Mines the output per man-shift worked in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain during the 12 months ended November, 1921, and for the comparable period ended in 1935?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Figures are only available on a quarterly basis and, owing to the stoppage in 1921, particulars for that year are only available in respect of the March and December quarters when the output of coal per man-shift worked was 14.46 cwts. and 17.73 cwts. respectively. The corresponding figures for the March and December quarters of 1935 were 23.40 and 23.89 cwts.

Mr. DAY: Does that include all the people employed in the industry? Does it include managers and clerks?

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is a suitable question to put down.

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (EXPORTS, ASSISTANCE).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: asked the Secretary for Mines what financial assistance in the form of subsidy or concessions in railway rates or any other assistance is given to coal exports from Germany, Poland, or any other coal-exporting country in Europe?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement embodying those methods, so far as they have come to my knowledge, by which European countries assist their coal export trade.

Following is the statement:

Preferential rates for the movement of coal consigned to contested markets are granted by the State railways in Poland, France, Belgium and Czechoslovakia, and by the railway company in Germany.

The German coal industry assists the sale of coal in contested markets by drawing on the proceeds of a levy on all coal sold, and German coal exporters are able in number of markets to secure specially favourable exchange facilities through the operation of the German Government's control of foreign exchange.

In Belgium the proceeds of the tax on coal import licences are allocated to the


Belgian coal industry, but it is not known what use is made of this subvention.

It is understood that in Czechoslovakia the coal tax is remitted on coal for export.

In Poland and Turkey the sale of coal in contested markets is assisted by the charging of lower prices for coal for export than for coal for inland consumption.

EXPORTS.

Mr. G. HALL: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the serious falling off in the coal export trade of this country, especially South Wales; and, as this falling off of trade is creating serious economic difficulties and loss of employment in the Special Areas, will he state what action, if any, the Government propose to take to deal with the matter?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The special position of South Wales is recognised by the Government and receives their constant attention.

Mr. HALL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what the Government propose to do for this matter, as it has received their attention for some years and nothing has been done?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The most immediate thing is that the Prime Minister is receiving a deputation from Welsh Members of Parliament to-morrow.

Mr. SANDYS: Is it not true that the losses complained of are to a considerable extent attributable to the policy of sanctions, of which hon. Members opposite are the strongest advocates?

GERMANY.

Mr. G. HALL: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is able to state the political and financial considerations which have influenced the large increase in the volume of the German coal export trade?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member's question raises a number of involved issues which I regret it is not possible to deal with in answer to a question.

COAL MINES BILL.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will

invite the Joint Standing Consultative Committee of Coalowners and the Mineworkers' Federation for consultation before the Coal Mines Bill is brought forward for discussion?

Captain CROOKSHANK: There is no occasion for a special invitation at the present time because as long ago as 7th April the Joint Standing Consultative Committee was informed that I would give the fullest consideration to any suggestions which it might wish to offer as to the best means for giving effect to the proposal for the amendment of Part II of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. I have as yet received no such suggestions.

Mr. MACDONALD: Is not this committee of vital importance to the industry, and would not an invitation from the Minister to the committee help to make it of more value to the industry?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I want the committee to be of the greatest possible value to the industry. All I have said is that some six weeks ago I said that I was prepared to give the fullest consideration to any suggestions the committee might make, and it has not yet made any.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that the Bill was killed last night in a Committee room upstairs?

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: In view of the fact that this committee was also set up as a result of the last settlement, did not the hon. Gentleman really think he was under an obligation to consult such an important body before bringing legislation to his House?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member will see my reply to that question and similar questions in what I said to the House on Monday last week.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has had consultations with the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission with regard to the Amendments which the President of the Board of Trade announced would be moved to the Coal Mines Bill?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have had no consultations with the Commission as such, but since the Commission is the body to be entrusted with the administration of the provisions of the Bill, if it becomes law, I have naturally been in


touch with them, through their chairman, during the consideration of the proposed Amendments.

Mr. MACDONALD: Are we to understand that the substantial Amendments which were suggested by the President of the Board of Trade last week were put forward without any consultation with the Re-organisation Commission?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have explained the situation in my reply. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study it.

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Secretary for Mines when he proposes to issue the White Paper in connection with the Mines Bill; and whether it is proposed to proceed with the Bill?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. G. HALL: Has the Minister seen reports in the Press to-day that it is the intention of the Government to withdraw the Bill?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Did not the hon. Gentleman yesterday make a statement to a meeting of private Members with regard to the withdrawal of this Bill, and would he not now take the House into his confidence as he did a private group?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, referring to a private meeting, but I do not think I would betray any secrets if I said that I made no such statement there.

Mr. SHINWELL: As legislation is a matter for the Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill or to withdraw it?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I shall be delighted to do that when I have had notice.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Could not the Minister—

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are more than 90 questions on the Order Paper.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVES, LEGISLATION).

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make a statement in regard to the expansion of the term "native" and consequent restrictions as embodied in the recent Southern Rhodesian Native Pass Consolidation Amendment Bill?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The definition of the terra "native" contained in the Bill in question is similar to that which has been adopted of recent years in other Southern Rhodesia legislation. I understand that the object is to clarify the position of half-castes who were born and live as natives in the native reserves.

Mr. JAGGER: Are we to take it that the question whether a man is a native depends upon whom he lives with?

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the dissatisfaction with the Southern Rhodesian (Native Registration) Bill which has been expressed by representatives of the natives' interests and by the municipality of Buluwayo, he will advise His Majesty to withhold his consent to this Measure?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am informed that no expressions of dissatisfaction at the Bill have been received by the Southern Rhodesia Government from representatives of native interests in the Colony, and that such criticisms as were made by other local interests were for the most part concerned with points of detail and have been largely met by amendments of the Bill in Committee. The Bill passed all its stages without a Division and has now been assented to by the Governor. I am now awaiting a copy of the legislation as amended, but in the circumstances I see no reason to suppose that I should be justified in taking the action which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: May I ask whether, in the case of native legislation passed by a Dominion Government, the right of disallowance is still vested in the Imperial Crown despite the Statute of Westminster?

Mr. MacDONALD: In the case of Southern Rhodesia, which is not a Dominion, the right of disallowance still continues.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what arrangements, if any, are being made for holding another Imperial Conference?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I am still in communication with the Dominion Governments on this subject, and I am not in a position to make any further statement at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ARGENTINA.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been in communication with the Government of the Argentine Republic as to the duty upon foreign linseed imposed as a result of the Ottawa Agreements Act; and can he make a statement on the matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): No, Sir.

Sir P. HANNON: Will this important matter be taken into consideration in the consultation which is now in progress with the Argentine?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend asked me whether I have been in communication with the Argentine on this subject, and I said "No."

Mr. CULVERWELL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an estimate of the real trade balance for 1935 between Argentina and Great Britain, taking into account invisible as well as visible exports and making allowance for re-export from this country of imports from Argentina?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the absence of reliable information regarding the invisible items, apart from the revenue from British investments in the Argentine, I regret that I am unable to furnish the desired information. As regards income from investments, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 12th May.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Having regard to the fact that the information is not available, will my right hon. Friend tell me how the trade agreement with the Argentine will be carried into effect, particularly its financial provisions?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend cares to put down a question I will give him such information as he desires.

Sir EUGENE RAMSDEN: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of sterling exchange allocated by the Argentine Government to United Kingdom interests in the period from the conclusion of the Roca Treaty to the end of 1935; and whether he is satisfied that this amount fairly represents the proportion agreed upon under the terms of the treaty?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: £81,747,000. Subject to certain adjustments which are under discussion, I have no reason to think that the figure just quoted does not fairly represent the amount to which this country has been entitled under the Agreement of 1933.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Having regard to the earlier statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he had not got the information, can he tell me how he is now satisfied that we are to get a square deal?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a different question.

AUSTRALIA (TARIFF AMENDMENTS).

Sir P. HANNON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been able to make any estimate of the advantage which is likely to accrue to exporters in the United Kingdom by reason of the tariff reductions recently made by the Australian Government?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the Customs Tariff amendments recently discussed in the Commonwealth Parliament. These covered amendments of the tariff which had been brought into force provisionally since December, 1933. On the basis of recent import statistics, the reductions made affected United Kingdom trade amounting to £1,500,000, and the increases £150,000. As the House will be aware, the Commonwealth Government introduced important new proposals on 22nd May relating to the import of cotton and rayon goods, motor cars, and some


other commodities. While it is not possible to estimate the exact effect of these new proposals on United Kingdom exports to Australia, I am very glad to say they include measures, notably those relating to cotton and rayon goods, which should prove of substantial benefit to United Kingdom trade. I share the hope of the Commonwealth Government that the arrangements will strengthen the trade between the two countries.

Sir P. HANNON: Does not my right hon. Friend think that his statement indicates the great importance of developing Imperial Preference by every means in our power?

DENMARK.

Sir P. HANNON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when concluding a further agreement with Denmark, he will endeavour so to conclude the agreement that any benefits which it is proposed to confer upon Danish traders shall not be given simultaneously to other countries on account of the most-favoured-nation treatment clause?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The extension to third countries of any benefits to Danish traders, arising from a continuation after 20th June of the Anglo-Danish Trade Agreement, is dependent upon the stipulations of existing treaties between this country and third countries. These treaties normally provide for most-favoured-nation treatment to both parties in respect, inter alia, of Customs duties and import and export prohibitions and restrictions.

Mr. LEVY: Would it not be wise to terminate the most-favoured-nation clause in order to give my right hon. Friend greater facilities for bargaining with those with whom we intend to make further trade agreements?

Mr. BOULTON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the manufacturers of cutlery who have orders for Denmark are unable to proceed with such orders owing to licences for cutlery not being issued; will he urge the importance of this matter with the Danish authorities; and will he bear the cutlery trade in mind when discussing any new agreement with the Danish Government?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that there have been complaints of inadequate licences for the importation of cutlery into Denmark, and the matter is being borne in mind in the negotiations now proceeding.

CHAIN STORES.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has given any consideration to the effects of legislation in Germany and Czechoslovakia, limiting the establishment of one-price stores, and chain stores, elsewhere than in the chief towns; and whether he will consider the desirability of setting up an inquiry into the recent extension of chain stores and one-price stores in this country, with a view to ascertaining whether the expansion of such stores should be allowed to continue unchecked?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been called to legislation of this kind in various countries, but as regards this country, I see no necessity for an inquiry such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

Mr. CARTLAND: Will my right hon. Friend consider the question of legislation to prevent chain stores from taking part in party politics and spending their dividends on political objects?

NEWSPRINT (IMPORT DUTY).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: asked the President of the Board of Trade which commercial agreements at present prevent this country from imposing an import duty on newsprint and the date at which they can be terminated?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The trade agreements with Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Latvia include provisions for the entry free of duty into the United Kingdom of newsprint produced or manufactured in those countries. These Agreements can be terminated by six months' notice of denunciation expiring on or after the following dates:—

Norway and Sweden: 7th July, 1936.
Finland: 23rd November, 1936.
Estonia and Latvia: 31st December, 1936.

In addition, the Ottawa Agreements provide for the entry free of duty of goods (including newsprint) consigned from any part of the British Empire and produced or manufactured in countries parties to those Agreements. They can be terminated by six months' notice of denunciation expiring on or after 20th August, 1937, except the Agreement with the Government of India, from whom notice of termination has already been received. Over 99 per cent. of the imports of newsprint from British countries are supplied by Newfoundland and Canada, and about 70 per cent. of our total imports come from British countries.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in future negotiations as to trade agreements and in negotiations concerning these agreements that are due to expire, he will safeguard the position of newsprint manufacturers in this country so that it may be possible to place a tariff on imported newsprint?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The position of the United Kingdom newsprint industry will be carefully borne in mind in any negotiations for the revision of trade agreements.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman specially bear in mind that the places where newsprint is manufactured are mostly in the distressed areas or where there is a high incidence of unemployment, and that if anything can be done in the direction I have indicated it will be of great benefit to the newsprint industry and relieve unemployment

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, that important fact will be taken into account.

SANCTIONS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that 63 British firms, who are importers of Italian goods, have already lost £95,000 in consequence of the sanctions imposed against Italy; whether he has considered the proposals submitted to him by the Association of British Importers from Italy; and will he make a further statement on the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: With regard to the first part of the question, I have seen statements in the Press to the effect

mentioned, but I have no further information. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on this subject on 12th May.

WEST AFRICA.

Mr. LOGAN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the return to the Merseyside of the Elder Dempster shipping group; and is he now prepared to enter into consultation with the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce as to ways and means to restore the West Coast of Africa trade to Liverpool?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The chief shipping services from this country to the west coast of Africa have always been maintained from Liverpool. As regards the second part of the question, I think this is a matter primarily for the commercial and shipping interests concerned.

Mr. LOGAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recall the various deputations which have approached him on this matter; and in view of this particular firm having come into the city, is it not possible to resume negotiations to get trade and workers together?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: For some time past, certainly for as long as I can remember, trade between the West African Colonies and this country has been effected through Liverpool.

Mr. LOGAN: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of what I am getting at in regard to palm oil and kernels and whale oil? There is a difficulty, and I am anxious to get business relationships established, so that we can have better trade.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will put down a question on oils, I will give him an answer.

EXPORTS.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage increases of exports from this country to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the Argentine, respectively, for the year 1935 over the year 1932?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Comparing the year 1935 with 1932, the increase in exports of


United Kingdom goods consigned to Canada was 30 per cent., to Australia 47 per cent., to New Zealand 29 per cent., to the Union of South Africa 86 per cent., and to the Argentine Republic 43 per cent.

GERMANY (SHIPBUILDING ORDERS).

Colonel ROPNER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the shipbuilding orders which are being placed in Germany were placed abroad by firms in possession of frozen credits or in respect of goods sold to Germany for which payment is available in sterling under the Anglo-German Payments Agreement of 1934?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the orders to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers have been placed for the purpose of liquidating some frozen balances in Germany, in respect of transactions for which exchange is not required to be provided under the Anglo German Payments Agreement of 1st November, 1934. This Agreement provides for the allocation of specific amounts of sterling for payment for United Kingdom goods exported to Germany, as well as for the redemption of debts due before 1st November, 1934, from persons in Germany to persons in the United Kingdom, in respect of the sale of goods.

Colonel ROPNER: In view of the fact that the answer which I have just received directly contradicts an answer which the President of the Board of Trade gave to me a few days ago, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS.

Mr. MAXTON: asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House as to the reasons for the delay in the introduction of the new Regulations for the administration of unemployment assistance; and whether he is now in a position to indicate the date when they will be presented to Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that it has not yet been possible to introduce the new Regulations. The Government

have felt it necessary to make a very exhaustive examination of the possible effects of any changes. The variety of conditions existing in different parts of the country has rendered this examination much more protracted than was expected. I am not able to indicate the precise date when the new Regulations will be presented to Parliament, but I do not anticipate that final decisions will now be long delayed.

Mr. MAXTON: Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the difficulties are with the Unemployment Assistance Board in preparing the Regulations, or with the Cabinet in accepting the Regulations?

The PRIME MINISTER: Much as I should like to oblige the hon. Member, I am very much afraid that my Privy Councillor's oath would prevent me from replying in full.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that all these difficulties were known to the Government, as they were known to the Members of the House, at the last General Election, and that they are largely due to the operation of the means test and the difficulty of framing regulations to operate it, and why does he not end the whole thing?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would not say particularly to what the difficulties are due, but the hon. Member knows and has indicated, as I know, that it is an extremely intricate and difficult subject.

Mr. G. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless the new Regulations are very much more generous than the old ones we do not want to see them introduced?

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is of the utmost consequence that these Regulations when they are introduced should receive the most dispassionate and cool consideration, and that these continued procrastinations and delays are creating an atmosphere which is very unfavourable to their proper consideration?

AIR DEFENCE.

Mr. PORRITT: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the strategic


importance of the Netherlands in the event of an attack from the air, the Government have considered or contemplate any plans of defence in collaboration with the Dutch military authorities?

The PRIME MINISTER: No such plans have been considered.

Mr. PORRITT: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the direct route from London to Central Europe passes through Holland?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I was aware of that.

GERMANY (BRITISH CREDITS).

Mr. VIANT: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has given further consideration to the report of the Bank for International Settlements at Basle; is he satisfied with the reasons advanced for there being a reduction of £1,000,000 only in the total British credits, used and unused; and whether any specific creditor or creditors have increased their credits to Germany during the past 12 months?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): In reply to the first two parts of the question, I am of opinion that the statement published on Tuesday last by the Committee of British Short-term Creditors satisfactorily disposes of this matter. As regards the last part of the question, the statement points out that no new or increased credit can be granted by any creditor under the Standstill Agreement.

Mr. DALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as, I think, my hon. Friend who put it down rather intended that it should be read, and that is with the latter part of the question not limited to the Standstill Agreement? The latter part asks whether any specific creditor or creditors have increased their credits to Germany in the past 12 months, that is inside or outside the Standstill Agreement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understood the hon. Member's question to refer to credits under the Standstill Agreement. If he refers to other financial credits as well, I have no knowledge of any specific instances of the kind.

Mr. DALTON: In view of the very persistent statements that are made in the City of London, cannot the right hon.

Gentleman take steps to inquire into the transactions of certain firms who are persistently mentioned—Messrs. Schroeder, for instance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no power to make such an investigation.

Mr. DALTON: Will the Chancellor take such powers, in order that we may not sit idly by and let funds go out for the armament of Germany?

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider giving facilities for a Second Reading discussion on Private Members' Bills brought in under the Ten-Minutes Rule which have been introduced and carried their First Reading in two consecutive sessions?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I do not consider that the hon. Member's proposal is practicable.

Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Private Members' Bills have not much chance in the House? I know that he has a philosophical outlook and that he knows the old adage that things come to those who wait. I have been waiting a couple of years with a Bill, and it seems that I shall never get on with it.

The PRIME MINISTER: I would make two observations on that statement. The first is that, as the hon. Member knows, a considerable amount of time is allocated to Private Members' Bills in the earlier part of the Session. That is the right time, I think, for a Private Member to bring in a Bill, especially if it is of a, contentious nature. The mere passing of a Bill under the Ten-Minutes Rule does not, as the House knows, at all indicate that that Bill is non-contentious or popular. There is a generous feeling in the House that if a Private Member is sufficiently interested to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minutes Rule, he should be given leave to do so, because they like to see the Bill in print, but afterwards most of them desire never to see it any more.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

CORONATION SOUVENIRS (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his


attention has been drawn to the increasing imports of medals, flags, and other goods for the Coronation celebration; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to stop this inrush of foreign goods which should be made by British workpeople?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair) on 4th May.

Mr. THORNE: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not aware that the flags and medals required for the Coronation are made in Birmingham?

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the estimated cost annually for the increase of the contributory pensions from 10s. per week to £1 per week?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The additional cost of increasing contributory pensions to persons between the ages of 65 and 70 and pensions to widows from 10s. to 20s. a week would be about £41,000,000 a year at the present time. The additional cost of the same increase in the pensions to persons over 70 (which consist partly of contributory and partly of non-contributory pensions which could not be separated) would be about £44,000,000 a year at the present time. Each of these figures would increase steadily in the future.

Mr. GALLACHER: Money well spent.

SERVICE CHARITY ENTERTAINMENTS.

Sir ROBERT YOUNG: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of money obtained for charitable purposes for the benefit of Service charities from Tattoo, Navy week, and Royal Air Force pageants during the past five years; and whether such receipts are subjected to Entertainments Duty?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: During the five years, 1931–35, Service charities benefited to the extent of Approximately £75,000 from Navy weeks, and £61,000 from the Royal Air Force display and Empire Air Day. In regard to the Army, I understand that complete information

as to these charitable funds is not available in the War Office, and could probably not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. In regard to the second part of the question, generally speaking, Service charity entertainments qualify for exemption from Entertainments Duty under one or other of the relevant provisions of the law relating to entertainments given for charitable purposes.

Mr. DAY: Does the Minister consider that the small amounts from these very big displays are sufficient?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

STATISTICS (COMPILATION).

Mr. LEONARD: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Census Office, the Inland Revenue, the Home Office, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade each compile and put into use their own classification of trades and businesses; and, if so, whether he will consider the advantages of co-ordinating such Government statistics with one code of definitions and classifications?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The desirability, in general, of the adoption of a uniform classification of occupations and industries in the statistics issued by different Government Departments is fully appreciated, and as long ago as 1921 a standard classification was drawn up. I understand, however, that for a variety of reasons it has not been possible for all Departments to follow that classification in detail. The whole matter is under constant consideration by the Departments concerned, and will necessarily come up for review by the Permanent Consultative Committee on Official Statistics in connection with the proceedings of the Conference of British Commonwealth Statisticians held at Ottawa last year.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the decline in the volume of work in his Department, he will state what arrangements are being made to place the redundant staff in other Government Departments?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): There is no redundancy


of staff at the present time, any decline in the volume of work being fully balanced by loss of staff through death and retirement owing to age, ill-health, etc.

Mr. DAY: Is the Department making arrangements to place in other Government Departments the female staff as well as the male staff that are found to be redundant?

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Would not the best way of placing any future redundant staff be to form a separate Government Department for the express purpose of preparing answers to questions put by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day)?

SEAMEN (SUNDERLAND).

Mr. RITSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the shortages of seamen in the port of Sunderland in each particular grade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Shortages occur from time to time, and I am informed that, while at the present moment there is no actual shortage at Sunderland, the number of ordinary seamen available there is small. There has this year been on occasions shortage in this grade.

Mr. RITSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was stated last week that 473 seamen of all grades were signing on and that this week it is anticipated there will be 408; is he also aware that in the speech made on 14th May, the statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman himself that there was a shortage of seamen in Sunderland? I want to contradict that by asking this question.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The exact words used by me on 14th May were:
There is a shortage of ordinary seamen reported at…Sunderland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1936; col. 649, Vol. 312.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MEDICAL RESEARCH.

Mr. LEES-JONES: asked the Secretary of State for War what experiments and/or investigations have been made on behalf of the War Office into the prevention and cure of the common cold

and influenza within the last six years; and what success, if any, has attended them?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): Investigations have been undertaken in vaccine-therapy and in prevention by extensive hygienic precautions, without, however, satisfactory evidence being obtained as to the efficacy of vaccines in relation to either influenza or the common cold. An inquiry now being conducted in collaboration with the Medical Research Council, however, gives hope of more promising results.

RATIONS (BUTTER).

Mr. LEACH: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the regulations of the Scottish Office which ensure that prisoners in Edinburgh police cells shall be provided with butter in their regular diet; and will he take steps to see that His Majesty's military forces are similarly provided?

Mr. COOPER: I understand that no instructions to the effect that prisoners detained in police lock-up cells in Edinburgh shall be provided with butter in their regular diet, have been issued by the Scottish Office. My right hon. Friend has merely intimated to police authorities in Scotland that he considers that the maximum allowance for a meal for such prisoners should be ninepence, with a limit of three meals to any one prisoner per diem. The manner in which the money is spent is left to the discretion of the police authority. As regards the second part of the question, the matter is still under consideration.

Mr. LEACH: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the communication from the Scottish Office to which he refers makes definite reference to the provision of butter, and does he further realise that if the Scottish Office are making the Scottish prison cell more attractive than the Army, it will have an effect on recruiting?

CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the contracts which are being given to MacLellan's Rubber Works, in the Mary hill Division of Glasgow, are being operated under a fair-wages clause or trade union conditions?

Mr. COOPER: The usual clause, based upon the Fair Wages Resolution passed by the House of Commons on 10th March, 1909, is included in all contracts placed with Messrs. G. MacLellan and Company, Limited.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very definite persuasion among the workers in this factory, and will he make inquiries to see whether the fair-wages clause is being operated in regard to these contracts?

Mr. COOPER: If the hon. Member will bring to my notice any complaint, I shall be most happy to make inquiries.

MEDICAL CORPS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the deficiency in the authorised establishment of the Royal Army Medical Corps; and whether he can give the reason for this shortage?

Mr. COOPER: The deficiency is 60 officers and 309 other ranks. As regards officers, the shortage, which is being temporarily met by the employment of 38 temporary commissioned officers and a number of civilian medical practitioners, is a considerable improvement on the deficiency of 97 which existed when the present conditions of service came into operation two years ago, and I have every reason to hope that it will be made good at no distant date. The reason for the shortage must, of course, be a matter of opinion, but in the case of other ranks, it is accentuated by a recent increase of 169 in the establishment.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that this shortage has been going on for 20 years?

Mr. COOPER: It is gradually improving?

GAS MASKS.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the present practice when an officer or man retires from the Army for his gas mask to be retained by the authorities; and whether, in view of the fact that these masks are specially fitted, he will consider the desirability of allowing them to be kept by the retired officers and men so that there will be no need for them to be provided with masks from other sources, and that they may help in showing civilians how gas masks should be used?

Mr. COOPER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I would explain, however, that gas masks for the troops are not specially fitted, but are made in a number of standard sizes, and those withdrawn when the wearers retire or pass to the reserve are made available to be taken into use again immediately.

Captain PLUGGE: Does the Minister not think that this would provide a very efficient means of spreading knowledge of anti-gas procedure throughout the country at very small cost?

Mr. DAGGAR: Could the Minister not promise that ex-officers in this House shall at least be allowed to retain their gas masks?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think that ex-officers, whether in this House or otherwise, will be entitled to any special privilege against any other member of the public. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge), I am not convinced that it would be worth the very large expense entailed upon the Army Fund to make this special provision, or that it would ensure a very wide measure of instruction to the public.

BRIGADE OF GUARDS (MUSICIANS).

Mr. BOULTON: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the musicians of the Brigade of Guards receive any additional rates of pay to that of ordinary soldiers; and, if not, whether he will consider recommending additional allowances, in view of the altered circumstances which have seriously affected these military bands from earning additional remuneration by private engagements?

Mr. COOPER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AFFORESTATION (SPECIAL AREAS).

Mr. SEXTON: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many unemployed persons in the Special Areas have been engaged on the additional planting scheme outlined at the recent conference at Newcastle-on-Tyne?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): None have been engaged on the planting scheme referred to, as the planting season does not begin until November, but draining and fencing will be undertaken as soon as possession has been secured of new land.

Mr. SEXTON: Is it not a fact that the landowners are standing in the way of the scheme?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: No, Sir.

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS (SPECIAL AREAS).

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the low medical standard of boys and young men in the Special Areas; what is the percentage of rejections on medical grounds of men and boys for the juvenile transfer centres and men's instructional centres; and what steps he is taking, if any, to make those people fit for training by providing the necessary medical treatment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I am aware of the desirability of improving the standard of physical fitness of boys and young men in the Special Areas. During the six months ending March, 1936, 17 per cent. of the men from all recruiting areas examined for admission to residential instructional centres were rejected on medical grounds. To meet this problem it is proposed to provide remedial treatment at a number of local centres shortly to be established in the Special Areas, and also at certain of the residential instructional centres. In South Wales, all boys willing to transfer from certain selected districts have been medically examined within the past few weeks, and about 16 per cent. were rejected for admission to the junior transfer centre on medical grounds. In the North Eastern Division, medical examination for admission to the junior transfer centre has been confined to boys who appear to be in need of reconditioning, and about 28 per cent. have been rejected on medical grounds. Steps have recently been taken to enable education authorities to extend still further the medical services available to juveniles attending junior instruction centres.

Mr. STEWART: Is not the low medical standard of men and boys in the Special

Areas due, to an appreciable extent, to malnutrition?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: That is a much wider question.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the fact that everyone who has looked into this question of the physical condition of young people has said that with a proper system of open-air nursery schools this later medical examination of the children would not be necessary, as they would have a much better start?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES (REMINDERS).

Mr. KEELING: asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to bring into force the arrangements for sending a reminder to every driver of a motor vehicle a few days before his driving licence expires?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the circular now being issued, from which he will see that many councils will introduce the reminder system forthwith but that some may not find it practicable to cover the case of licences issued before the date of the circular.

OMNIBUS SERVICES, WALTHAMSTOW.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make representations to the London Passenger Transport Board regarding the present inadequacy of the No. 35 omnibus services which run to Walthamstow?

Captain HUDSON: I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that the omnibus services on Route No. 35 will be increased on Saturdays and Sundays from 30th May to meet the extra demand in the summer months. The services on the other days of the week are considered by the board to be adequate, but they are keeping the route under special observation.

DISTRESSED AREAS (COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS).

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will place


in the Library, for the benefit of Scottish Members, Appendix III to Command Paper 4728, 1934, which was not included when the Command Paper was published giving the reports on the conditions in depressed areas?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As a result of a question addressed to the Prime Minister on 13th November, 1934, the hon. Member was given facilities for studying this document, and I shall be glad to accord similar facilities to any other Member who may be interested.

Mr. MACLEAN: Ought not Members of Parliament to be provided with facilities for studying this Appendix inside the House? Seeing that it is an appendix to a report the expenses of preparing which were paid by the House, should not Members here who have read the other appendices to the report be allowed to read this one as well?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The hon. Gentleman will remember that there was no desire at all to hide anything or to conceal anything from hon. Members as a whole. The point was that these appendices were extremely voluminous, containing masses of figures. The main deductions from the appendices were included in the general report, but it was not considered to be worth the expense of publishing these very full and detailed statistical appendices for general distribution. If the hon. Gentleman wishes that some further facilities other than coming to the Ministry to read them should be given, I will certainly consider any suggestions he may make, but I think the House should realise that there is no desire to hide anything from anybody; it is merely a question of expense, and the extremely detailed nature of the appendices.

Mr. MACLEAN: Was not this report prepared in typewritten form, and cannot a typewritten copy be placed in the Library for Scottish Members to study?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I have already told the hon. Member that any suggestion, such as the one that he now

makes, for better facilities than are now accorded, will be considered in my Department.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir P. HANNON: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would be so kind as to suggest to hon. Members of this House the possibility of a limitation of the number of supplementary questions during the Question Hour? To-day there are 94 questions on the Order Paper, and fewer than 70 have been reached. I submit to you that some limit should be placed on the number of supplementary questions.

Mr. STEPHEN: Might I be allowed to point out to you, Sir, that the hon. Member who has raised this question is one of those who have put supplementary questions to-day?

Mr. GALLACHER: Might there not be fewer unseemly interruptions when supplementary questions are asked?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether this point of Order is not a reflection on your judgment?

Mr. SPEAKER: I make no complaint about that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister for what reason he is moving to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule tonight?

The PRIME MINISTER: This is, I hope and believe, only a precautionary measure. We are anxious to get the Report stage of the Education Bill completed. If the Report stage should take a much less time—and I hope it may finish in good time—we should move the Third Reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 117.

Division No. 204.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Anstruther-Gray. W. J.
Atholl, Duchess of


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Aske, Sir R. W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Albery, I. J.
Astor, Vlsc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.




Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Granville, E. L.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.
Patrick, C. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
peake, O.


Blindell, Sir J.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peat, C. U.


Bossom, A. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Boulton, W. W.
Grimston, R. V.
peters, Dr. S. J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Petherick, M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Guy, J. C. M.
Pilkington, R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Plugge, L. F.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hannah, l. C.
ponsonby, Col. C, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Lelth)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Porrltt, R. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Harvey, G.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bull, B. B.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Radford, E. A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Burghley, Lord
Heneage, Lleut.-Colonel A. p.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cary, R. A.
Holmes, J. S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rowiands, G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Channon, H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Salmon, Sir I.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Salt, E. W.


Christie, J. A.
Jackson, Sir H.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Clarry, sir Reginald
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Sandys, E. D.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Keeling, E. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Savery, Servington


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Scott, Lord William


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Latham, Sir P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shute, Colonel Sir. J. J.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Leckie, J. A.
Smiles, Liout.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Critchley, A.
Lees-Jones, J.
Smlthers, Sir W.


Crooke, J. S.
Leigh, Sir J.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crossley, A. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Levy, T.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'T'd)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


De Chair, S. S.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


De Ia Bére, R.
Lloyd, G. W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crlchton- (N'thw'h)


Danville, Alfred
Loftus, P. C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalrn)


Donner, P. W.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M, F.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Drewe, c.
Lyons, A. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tate, Mavis C.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
McCorquodaie, M. S.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Duggan, H. J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Touche, G. C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Dunglass, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isie of Wight)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Eckersley, P. T.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Turton, R. H.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McKie, J. H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Ellis, Sir G.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Emery, J. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wallace, Captain Euan


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, T.
Warrender, Sir V.


Entwlstie, C. F.
Maitland, A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Everard, W. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wells, S. R.


Fildes, Sir H.
Markham, S. F.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Findlay, Sir E.
May hew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fleming, E L.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Furness, S. N.
Moreing, A. C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morgan, R. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ganzoni, sir J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Gibson, C. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. on. Sir J.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencestor)
Wragg, H.


Gledhill, G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Munro, P.



Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goodman, Col. A. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel


Gower, Sir R. V.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.








NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Owen, Major G.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, G. D.
Parker, H. J. H.


Barnes, A. J,
Harris, Sir P. A.
Potts, J.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rltson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Hicks, E. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brooke, W.
Hollins, A.
Rowson, G.


Buchanan, G.
Hopkin, D
Seely, Sir H M


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Charleton, H. C.
John, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhlthe)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Compton, J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C,


cove, W. G.
Kirby, B. V.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G,
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhlll)
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Davies, D. L. (Pontyprldd)
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davles, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McGovern, J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Williams. E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Maclean, N.
Wilson, C. H. (Atterclife)


Gallacher, W.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Mander, G. le M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marklew, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mathers, G.



Glbbins, J.
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Mr. Croves and Mr. Whiteley.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Uckfield Water Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Liverpool to construct street works and to acquire certain lands; to confer further powers upon them with respect to their waterworks and electricity undertakings; to make better provision for the health local government and finance of the city; and for other purposes." [Liverpool Corporation Bill [Lords.]

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (CROWN LANDS BILL SELECT COMMITTEE).

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Three Members to serve on the Select Committee on the Crown Lands Bill: Mr. Ede, Sir David Reid, and Mr. West Russell.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill [Lords]): The Lord Advocate, The Attorney-General, Mr. David Davies, Lieut.-Commander Fletcher, Mr. Granville, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Lunn, Mr. Palmer, Sir Assheton Pownall, and Sir John Simon.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Solicitors Bill [Lords:]): Mr. Adamson, The Attorney-General, Mr. Croom-Johnson, Mr. Stephen Davies, Mr. R. C. Morrison, The Solicitor-General, Mr. Henry Strauss, Mr. Sutcliffe, Mr. Turton and Sir John Withers.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had


added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Weights and Measures (Scotland) Bill): Dr. Burgin, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Oscar Guest, Mr. Hannah, Mr. Lee, Mr. McEntee, Sir W. Lane Mitchell, Major Rayner, Mr. Ritson, and Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for trainees in dancing or dramatic art.)

By-laws relating to school attendance shall not apply to any child who has attained the age of fourteen and whom the parent or guardian shall cause to undergo a regular course of vocational training for the ballet or other form of stage dancing or dramatic art at an academy of dramatic art or school of dancing and approved by the Board of Education.—[Lieut.-Colonel Sandman Allen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.1 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The point that I wish to emphasise is that the children whose future profession will be either in dramatic art or in ballet dancing need special education for the purpose. Schools of dramatic art and ballet dancing should be looked upon by the local education authorities as educational establishments, but as things are these schools will not be able to have the children at the ages which are so essential for those taking up these professions. Children who are to become ballet dancers need not only mental but special physical training that will make the muscles and limbs supple. In both ballet dancing establishments and schools for dramatic art the children are obliged to have an exceptional education. A knowledge of French is nearly always essential, and a knowledge of literature both English and foreign, is also often required. The children may not follow the curriculum laid down by ordinary education authorities, but they do get an excellent education. What I want to ensure by the new Clause is that these schools shall count as educational establishments. I do not think I need enlarge on the subject. I hope the new Clause will be accepted by the Government, or at any rate that we shall get an assurance that there is no danger to these particular professions.

4.3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause. We all know that the Russian school of dancing, famous throughout the world, became famous because children from the age of 10 or 11 were taken to a special school, were given a first-class general education and at the same time had the intensive physical education without which ballet dancing in all its forms may well become a real danger. Ballet dancing, and indeed dancing of all kinds for the stage, can safely be taught to the children only when they are taught young and their limbs can be kept supple by special exercises. Special schooling and special training are required from the beginning. In the second place I would draw attention to the very notable tendency for promising children, both in the dramatic arts and in dancing, to be sent abroad in order that it may be possible for them to continue their education and take an active part in dramatic art, including the cinema. In present circumstances it is almost impossible in this country for children to be employed in connection with the stage or the cinema, with the result, which we do not wish, that children are sent to foreign countries in order that they may complete their training there and earn money—money which may never come back to this country.
There is a further consideration to be remembered. I have a certain connection, as chairman of the Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade, with the cinema industry, and I see what is passing, although I have no financial connection with the industry in any shape or form. I know that there is an increasing tendency among the public to favour films in which children are employed. Such films are made entirely abroad at the present time, and they have the features which we associate with the foreign film, not all of them desirable. We could make those films as well, if not better, in this country, were there reasonable facilities for the employment of children in that capacity. I am certain that no one whose name has been put to this new Clause would wish these children to be employed under any but the best conditions, under such conditions as the Board of Education or the local authorities may lay down, to make it perfectly certain that the children receive as good an education as, if not


a better education than, they would receive in a secondary or continuation school. But as we read the regulations the exceptions relating to beneficial employment and employment in entertainments do not meet the case either of the cinema industry or of the dramatic industry, and we feel that there are good grounds for putting this new Clause into the Bill.
The gross takings of the cinema industry in this country are in the neighbourhood of £80,000,000 to £90,000,000 a year. It is one of the great industries of the country, one in which employment has been steadily increasing for the past 10 or 15 years. At the same time it is one in which the competition of foreign films, particularly those with children, is becoming steadily more acute. We do not wish in any way to diminish the opportunities of children for education, but we feel that if it is a question of beneficial employment in a factory or shop, or of being trained for the dramatic art in all its branches, the dramatic art has as good a claim as the factory or workshop, or any other branch of training which education authorities would normally allow. I would remind the House that whatever be the traditional view of people as regards the theatre and the cinema and public entertainment as a whole, there can be no question that as far as children are concerned these things can be and are as well conducted, and as considerately conducted in the interests of the children, as any industry in this country.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am not going to traverse any statement made in the very interesting speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), though my reading of the Bill is not the same as his. As the hon. Member is aware, under the Bill beneficial employment is now to be so interpreted as to be equivalent to any employment of a suitable character. As I read the Bill the local authority already has the right to give consent. In the Standing Committee, during the times when I was present, speakers on behalf of such an Amendment as this pointed out that local authorities were quite unfit to exercise any discretion on this point, because they were benighted and reactionary on all

questions where art was concerned. Of course a dramatic school may not be at all a suitable place for a boy or girl of 14. It is most essential not only that permission should be very strictly given, but that when it is given there should be very strict supervision, control and even inspection of the establishment to which the boy or girl goes. The sponsors of this new Clause wish to put aside the local authorities, and that makes me suspect the whole of their arguments. We know by experience that the local authorities always have been the natural and best protectors of the children.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: rose—

4.10 p.m.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), but I think it may for the general convenience if I intervene early and explain what is rather a technical situation. Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will remember that we had an Amendment moved, I think by the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) to safeguard—it was in circumstances in which he assumed no responsibility for the Amendment—the position of children when they wish to take employment between.14 and 15 years of age. That Amendment was disposed of, I think by agreement between all Members of the Committee. The point raised now is a new one. There is no question of employment. Therefore the exemption provisions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have no significance. This is a question of training in a school, and not a question of employment.
I certainly have considerable sympathy with the desire, if the school is a proper one and the training is good, that the physical part of it should take place at an age when it is generally agreed that from purely physical considerations it is most appropriate. On the other hand I think everyone will see the very grave objection, if it is in any way possible to avoid it, of making exceptions from the provisions of the Bill in favour of particular types of training. It is easy to show that under the law as it stands it will be possible for the good academies and schools—I emphasise the word


"good"—to be able to carry on their work. The duty of parents under this Bill will be to send a child to school up to the age of 15, and the Bill does not provide that that school must in fact be one of the normal council or non-provided schools. It is possible to send a child to another type of school such as this, provided it is held, first of all, by the local authorities, whose duty it would be if they thought there was a breach of the Act to prosecute, or in the last resort by the magistrates, to be a reasonable alternative to the ordinary school. Hon. Members will see that that must involve the introduction into the curriculum of the schools, apart from the purely physical training for dancing, of some element of general education.
I gather from the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the new Clause that there will be no difficulty there. They referred to the learning of French and to the necessity for some knowledge of literature. I cannot believe that it is any handicap to a child who is being genuinely trained for a dramatic vocation and not for some kind of second-rate chorus dancing, that it should, at the same time as it receives vocational instruction, receive some general education also. The right hon. Member's desire is that in some way these places should come within the purview of the board. That is quite easy to accomplish. It would be open for any of these schools to apply to the board to be inspected by the board's inspectors. That inspection is done freely, and undoubtedly the report of the board's inspector upon the school would have a great influence on the local authority in deciding whether it was a school which satisfied the requirements, and would have a great influence on the magistrates if they had to decide whether there had been a breach of the law.
I think, therefore, hon. Members may rest assured that, when a. private school is properly conducted and some element of general education is given as well, it will be in no danger from any kind of persecution from an authority which might happen to take a particular point of view upon this case. I have mentioned all these safeguards as a final protection in the case of the good school, but I do not believe for a minute that anything of the kind will be necessary.

It will be my intention, when the Bill becomes law, to ask local authorities, and the people who are interested in these schools, to meet representatives of the board where we can discuss what sort of curriculum the local authorities will be prepared to accept as giving a reasonable education and therefore, a reasonable excuse for non-attendance at the ordinary school. In view of a situation which, I believe, will fully protect the well-conducted academies of this kind, I hope that my hon. Friends will not feel it necessary to press the Clause.

Mr. MORGAN: How many of such academies or schools envisaged in the Clause are already under the approval and inspection of the Board of Education?

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question off-hand. Hon. Members will realise that, when the Bill becomes law and there is inspection by the board's officers, if a school is well conducted it, it will be a great protection to the school, and I imagine, therefore, a good school will apply for inspection.

4.18 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman intervened before I spoke, because he has put the position so clearly and made it so sound that I really do not think it is necessary to press the Clause. I have always understood that properly conducted schools of this kind could be recognised as a substitute for attendance at an ordinary elementary school. In the county of London there are several of these schools which cooperate closely with the local education authorities. The trouble is that in some parts of the country there is a little prejudice and feeling that dancing or training for dancing is something to be discouraged. That idea is rather reminiscent of mid-Victorian days, but it is quite out of date in the reign of Edward VIII. If it has done nothing else but make clear that it is the intention in the Bill to provide variety and education and not to attempt to stereotype education of one particular form, the moving of the Clause has done a good thing. There are technical schools and many other kinds of centres which are a substitute for attendance at the ordinary schools, and now that the right hon. Gentleman has made the position clear, the heads of these


excellent institutions—some of them are really first-class—can live at peace and have no fear that the Bill will interfere with the carrying on of their excellent cultural work.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Mr. MARKLEW: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."

4.20 p.m.

Mr. MARKLEW: Members of the House should be allowed an expression of opinion on this Clause. I am under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Minister has already bestowed a somewhat hesitant, but undoubted blessing on the Clause. If I am mistaken in that impression, he will correct me. I do not intend to allow anything resembling it to become the law of the land without making an emphatic and vigorous protest. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Clause is being withdrawn."] I think that I am entitled to speak. Hon. Members who pay a little attention to the Order Paper in its blue form will have noticed that something like 14 Members have subscribed their names to the proposed new Clause. I took the trouble to ascertain as much information as possible concerning the personalities of the hon. Gentlemen who are so anxious that children should be exempted from attendance at school in order to receive a regular course of training for the ballet. With one exception, I found that the hon. Gentlemen who subscribed their names to the new Clause themselves had had the advantage of a full-time education at the university either at home or abroad. The question naturally arose in my mind whether they had framed the Clause and were anxious for its inclusion in the Bill in order to provide for exemption from school in order that their children might be trained for the purpose of ballet or stage dancing, or for some form of dramatic art. I had no great difficulty in answering that question myself. I had only to pose the question to provide the answer for it. I am satisfied that it is not any child of their own that they would wish to see exempt from ordinary attendance from school in order to obtain the advantages of a regular course of so

called educational training for dancing or dramatic art. It is the children of others for whom they seek to provide these advantages primarily in the interests of art or the interests of industry.

Mr. DENVILLE: As far as I am personally concerned, I am interested in my grandchildren going to an academy of this sort.

Viscountess ASTOR: This is not really only a question of what you call working men's children being exempted. I know of a marquess whose children are exempted in order to learn dancing, not that I would wish to exempt daughters of mine. You cannot make it a class question for the same purpose.

Mr. MARKLEW: I know how to deliver my own speech. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Denville) happens to be the one exception to the rule among the 14 hon. Members not to have had a university education. It is perhaps because he has not had the advantages of such an education as the remaining subscribers to the Clause that he adopts the attitude that he would not mind if his grandchildren received the instruction provided under the terms of the proposed Clause. I am no philistine. I appreciate the advantage of art in life as much as hon. Gentlemen who have subscribed their names to the Clause, and perhaps I appreciate it more than some of them apparently do, because of the difficulty of acquiring any opportunities for indulging in it in my particular walk of life. But I am concerned that the House should understand that, after all, it is not so much because of the artistic side that these matters are dealt with in the Clause, as the industrial and commercial side with which the subscribers to the Clause are concerned. There has been a reference to large sums of money, and I have an idea that, those supporting the Clause are more concerned with the acquiring of large sums of money than of acquiring additional opportunities for the development of art, whether in the form of dancing or dramatic expression. I believe that there is no more gladsome sight for any man's eyes than healthy, happy children dancing because of the sheer joy of life, and dancing in untutored form. On the other hand, there is no more pathetic spectacle than those


miserable creatures engaging in posturings, with no life and no interest in the matter, except such as is associated with the prospect of drawing a fee or a salary for the entertainment of those who took upon such spectacles. I appreciate dancing as much as any hon. Gentleman, but I like it to be a spontaneous expression of human vitality, and not the cultivated poses that are intended to provide amusement as well as entertainment for blasé people who cannot find any enjoyment in the natural expression. I hope that the House will be alive to the circumstances.
It may be true that in the City of London there are schools of dramatic art where cultivation of dramatic powers and the development of Terpsichorean agility —to use a phrase which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) might have used—are carried on under very desirable conditions. The Minister himself does not know of any of these schools being approved by the Department, and even if he did, those capable of receiving the approval of the Department are far outnumbered by shows—I can find no better name for them—of a far less desirable character. Who is to distinguish between one and the other? The onus of responsibility is to be thrown upon the local authority. I do not see how local authorities can grant exemptions for attendance at some of the schools of dancing of which I know in various towns and cities in this country.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, children's schools of dancing. If they did, I should have a very poor opinion of the local authority. [Interruption.] I do not know why there should be this ribald merriment. My references to dancing seem to suggest to the minds of some hon. Members that I am in possession of some guilty knowledge. I can assure them that there is nothing of the kind so far as I am concerned. Hon. Members may speak for themselves. I speak for myself. I am not opposed to dancing. I am not one of those who condemn it. My legs do not happen to be Presbyterian legs. I have done my share of dancing in my time, but I emphatically object that this Clause is not designed in the interests of art, so much as it is to provide facilities for children to be procurable for training, at an age when they ought to be in school learning the lessons of life, in order that later on

they may be exploited for personal gain. I hope that the Minister will think twice before he includes anything of this kind in the Bill.

4.28 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I should like to say a few words which may perhaps make hon. Members whose names are attached to the Clause more willing for it to be negatived, as it will have to be now. If the Clause had been added to the Bill it would have negatived rather the sort of instruction which they want, and which is quite within the law in certain circumstances. There is a Clause in the Bill which specifies the age of 14, and rather suggests that nothing of the sort can be allowed under that age. There is no law that children must go to public elementary schools, but only that children must be properly educated. Thousands of children are educated at private schools or at home, and if the education is sufficient no law can compel them to go to school. As the Minister suggested, if one of these schools was approved by the Board of Education, then, though the local authority might not altogether like it, the fact that it had that approval would give complete immunity from any conviction before any body of magistrates. The fact that the school had been approved after inspection by the Board of Education, renewed every year or two, would prevent any child being compelled to leave that school and to attend one of the ordinary schools. I rather think that as this Clause, if carried, would seem as if it were interfering with the ordinary law which allows attendance at approved schools of this kind at any age, it would be well that it should be negatived.

4.32 p.m.

Sir ALFRED BEIT: In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Marklew), I would like, as one of the 14 Members with a university education to whom he referred, to say why I put my name to this Clause. I have no personal interest in it. I am not married, and I have no children, but the matter was drawn to my attention when I heard it was desired to establish a new school of ballet in connection with the work performed by the Old Vic and Sadlers Wells Theatres, an organisation with which I have been long interested, though not financially. Knowing the work


they do, I supported this Clause because I felt that any school established by organisations like those would probably commend itself to the Board of Education, but in view of the assurance and explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education, I think it is unnecessary that this Clause should be pressed.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Marklew) will allow this Clause to be withdrawn, because I think it would be very unfortunate if, after the way in which the law was explained by the Minister, it should go out into the country that there was any doubt in this House as to its being a correct explanation of the position in regard to this matter. I served for some time as Chairman of the Departmental Committee on Private Schools. My hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) served with me on that Committee, and he knows that we laboured very diligently to produce a report that should enable this kind of difficulty to be dealt with by the Board and the local education authorities on rather more logical lines than had hitherto been the case.
The discussion this afternoon appears to me to illustrate the desirability of the Minister reconsidering his view not to implement some of our findings, because the difficulty which confronts those hon. Members whose names have been put down to this proposed new Clause is that there are large numbers of non-educational institutions masquerading under the name of "Academy of Dancing" and so on, and it would be a great protection for the institutions which have been instanced to-day if they had some imprimatur from the board or from the local education authority that would assure, not merely the public, but the parents who send their children to such places, that they would be really attending school and not places where even the particular vocation was rather badly taught. I am quite sure that was not the private institution for which the hon. Members were pleading, but I feel that the existing law is so strong and at the same time so discreet that everything they desired to do could be and should be done,

and I hope that, in view of the explanation given by the Minister and of the spirit in which the Clause was moved, my hon. Friend will now agree to the Clause being withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment certificate).

An employment certificate shall not be granted to any local authority or any Government Department.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. HAROLD MACMILLAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The effect of this Clause, if it were embodied in the Bill, would be that whatever other employers might do in the way of employing boys or girls at the age of 14, the Government, in their capacity as employers, and the local authorities, in their capacity as employers, should not follow this practice and should accept the view that, as employers, they would be doing a better public service by making 15 the age at which they normally recruited their labour. All through the public discussion of this Bill it has been the general view that the school-leaving age should be raised to 15. There is the view that in special circumstances exemptions should be allowed, but there is also the generally held view that employers, especially large employers, would do a useful service if they made it their ordinary custom to substitute 15 for 14 as the age at which they recruited their juvenile labour. If that is the agreed view of the House, I think perhaps the Minister might see his way to accept this Clause.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
I think it is essential that this first effort at planning by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. H. Macmillan), after considerable Parliamentary experience, should be brought into practical effect, though I notice that his plan did not go as far as attracting support from any other hon. Member of the House. I would like to emphasise the fact, already mentioned by him, that both local authorities and the Government


should set the highest possible standard of employment in this country, and if the general opinion of this House and, I think, of the party to which I belong is that we should aim where possible at raising the school-leaving age to 15, it would be very detrimental if any local authority or the Government themselves were at any time to be taking on people below that age. I cannot conceive how the Government could do that, unless through a Service Department, which I imagine, from what the Minister said just now, would probably be adequately safeguarded; but if this is the position of the Government, I think it would be as well to lay it down, if not by means of a new Clause, at any rate by the opinion of this House, that no authority, whether a local authority or the Government themselves, should employ people at a very early age.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I think the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has come rather too quickly to the conclusion that there are no supporters of this Clause because it appears on the paper in the sole name of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. H. Macmillan). There is, I believe, a very considerable measure of opinion behind this Clause in this House. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, in moving it, used studiously moderate language, and I have no wish to depart from the admirable example which he set in that respect. There is common agreement, I think, among all education authorities and in this House that if there is to be any very substantial educational benefit from this Bill, it will not be from the Bill itself or from anything which is in the Bill, but rather in the response which public opinion outside may make to it. It is clear that there has been developed throughout the country a very large body of opinion in favour of raising the school-leaving age to 15, without exemptions, which was not known to exist before. Many employers are, I think, strongly in favour of adopting that course, and some, I know, propose to do it here and there.
It would be of very great importance that the Government and the local authorities should set that example. There are Departments, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Torquay, in which they could carry it into effect

without any such Clause at all, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education could tell us whether he has been in consultation with the Post Office, for example, to know what lines they propose to adopt when the Bill comes into operation. No doubt he will have been in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General in regard to the employment of boy messengers, who are not at present, I believe, taken on under 14½. I imagine that the Post Office would not find any difficulty in raising the age to 15, and it would be satisfactory if an example of this kind were set by the Government and if it were followed by other employers throughout the country, many of whom, with little encouragement, are willing to go the whole hog in the matter. I support the new Clause.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I think again it might be convenient if I were to intervene now, though I am sure hon. Members will realise that it is with no desire to bring the Debate to an end when I resume my seat. The Mover of the Clause will forgive me if I make it plain that the Clause only appeared on the Paper this morning. He was good enough to discuss with me briefly yesterday the purpose with which he moved it, but, of course, the House will realise that in the circumstances it has been impossible for me to get any information with regard to the effects or difficulties which the Clause, if passed, might possibly bring about. I have been able in the short interval to get some information about Government Departments, but first of all perhaps it would be as well to say that I am in entire sympathy with the purpose of the Clause. I have noticed that where at present by-laws are in force raising the school-leaving age, any local authority which has been working those by-laws with a desire to reduce the number of exemptions has started by getting into touch with employers and trying to encourage and persuade them not to take children before the age of 15. I will certainly encourage local authorities all over the country to adopt the same procedure when this Bill becomes law. I quite agree that the position of these local authorities in dealing with the employers in their district would obviously be impossible if they or the


Government themselves were in fact recruiting under the age of 15. I am afraid I cannot accept the new Clause, because I have a rooted objection to accepting any Clause which it has been impossible, owing to lack of time, to find the scope of or to know if there may be some unforeseen difficulty arising out of its acceptance.
With regard to Government Departments, there is no recruiting under 15 outside the Service Departments and the Post Office. In regard to the Service Departments, the majority of cases fall under the category that we were discussing on the last Clause, that is to say, they are recruited for some technical work, and it counts as full-time education. The only exception are the band boys, and in their case, as a result of discussion, the War Office authorities have intimated their decision, on the appointed day, to raise the age of recruitment to 15, thus falling into line with the country as a whole. The only case, therefore, that remains is the Post Office. The Post Office, I understand, recruit a considerable number of boy messengers and a small number of girl probationers under the age of 15, although here—and I think it is a very good earnest of the desire of the Post Office to co-operate—in the areas where by-laws have been operating they have themselves raised the age of recruitment to 15.
It will be necessary to discuss with the Post Office the possibilities with regard to these categories, but there is, I believe, one difficulty. The Post Office pride themselves on never recruiting boys or girls for these classes unless they can guarantee them work after the age of 18. There would be, I think, some difficulty if the age of recruitment were reduced by one year in that people would be reaching the age of 18 in three groups instead of four. There might, therefore, be some temporary difficulty in regard to their absorption. That is the kind of problem that we shall have to discuss between now and the appointed day, but I think the fact that in the by-law areas the Post Office, of their own accord, have raised the age of recruitment is an earnest of their desire to help.
With regard to the local authorities, I can give the House no information. I do not know whether there is any

recruitment by the local authorities before the age of 15 and, if so, for what reason or in what service, or what difficulties would have to be overcome before the age could be raised to 15. But I am sure that hon. Members later on in the Debate will be telling me how much the local authorities desire the raising of the school age without any exception. Therefore I am sure that so far as the local authorities are concerned they will be ready to help. I wish that I had had more time to make inquiries. It may be found that there is no problem for the local authorities. Although I have every sympathy with the objects of the new Clause, and while I would do my best to encourage it, I cannot ask the House to accept it at such short notice, when I have not the information on which they ought to come to a decision.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. RILEY: I am glad that the Minister does not propose to accept the Clause in the form in which it has been moved. None of us on these benches would object if the school-leaving age could be raised not only to 15 but 16, if that could possibly be done, but the Clause would not attain the object that we desire. Under the Clause, it is not simply a case of asking Government Departments but also local authorities to set an example, and the effect would be to deprive the children of the poorest parents of an opportunity of the best kind of employment. As long as the exemption provisions of the Bill are applied, a child can secure exemption at 14 years of age for beneficial employment, but under this Clause they would be debarred from entering municipal or Government employment. Therefore, it would mean giving a premium to the children of well-to-do parents, who could keep their children at school longer than the age of 14, and they would have the benefit of having these places reserved for them, because the children of the working classes would have been debarred by leaving school at 14. Let local authorities and Government Departments set an example in regard to conditions of labour and remuneration, but do not let us shut the doors to any opportunity of employment that is available. To accept the Clause would do an injustice to the poorest children who would have to seek employment at 14


where the circumstances of the parent required it. By all means raise the age to 15 or 16, but if the age of 14 is to be retained, then let the children of the working classes have the same opportunities of beneficial employment as any other children.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: One recognises the difficulty of the Minister in considering the Clause at such short notice, because it involves a certain amount of inquiry, but I would ask him to consider it further, and, if he approves of it, to see that some such Clause is introduced in another place.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I would reinforce the plea made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers). The adoption of the Clause would provide the kind of example that could be shown by the House, and it would convince the large employers of labour that 15 is the appropriate age at which to recruit their labour. I do not share any of the misgivings that are felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley). If we pass the Clause and it would mean that no child could be recruited into the municipal service prior to the age of 15, all children would stand exactly on the same level. These jobs are now so much sought after that it would encourage many a parent to keep his child at school if he felt that on attaining the age of 15 the child would be able to enter municipal service. There is nothing in the Clause to prevent a local authority or a Government Department saying to a child, before the child reaches the age of 15: "On the attainment of your fifteenth birthday—birthday by Act of Parliament, not biologically—on the day that you are free from compulsory attendance at school, a job will be waiting for you." That is frequently done in the secondary schools, where a child cannot leave until the end of the school year in which he has attained the age of 16 years. I hope that between now and the time when the Bill is considered in another place—much as I dislike leaving things to be dealt with by another place—the Minister will get the views of the local authorities. I am sure that there is no local education authority that has to work the Bill that will be in a very comfortable position if it does not operate this Clause. Here

is an example that the House could set to the whole country, and give encouragement to every enlightened employer of labour.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. H. MACMILLAN: I thank the Minister for his speech, and I apologise for the short notice he has had with regard to the Clause. I should like to ask leave to withdraw the Clause, because we have heard the Minister clearly state the Government view and the line that is likely to be pursued by Government Departments. He also indicated that the local authorities may be encouraged to take this view, but if it should be found that it might be more useful to provide for this matter by legislation, there will be an opportunity, which no doubt he will take, in another place to see that such a provision is inserted.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first four Amendments, which deal with the same subject, are out of order. They would make a charge on the rates.

Sir P. HARRIS: While I do not dispute your Ruling, and I appreciate the difficulty on the Report stage of raising anything in the way of an Amendment which it is suspected might add to the cost of the rates or the taxes, I would point out that the Amendment which proposes to add six months to the time when exemptions should come into operation, has aroused a considerable amount of interest outside the House, and a very large number of people attach importance to it. I think it could be argued that as the local authorities will have to make provision in case exemptions are not given, it will not necessarily add to the cost of the rates or the taxes.

Mr. MARKHAM: May I approach the matter from a slightly different angle? In your Ruling you say that under the four Amendments it would not be possible to make exemptions, and therefore it would involve an extra charge. Under the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. H. Macmillan) exemptions would be permitted, and therefore I submit that perhaps that Amendment might stand.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a question of shortening the time for exemptions, and


whether or not it would involve a charge on the rates. I have to interpret the rule as to whether or not the Amendment would or might create a charge on the rates.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Perhaps I might call attention to the fact that in the Committee stage an Amendment in regard to fourteen years and six months was admitted and discussed at some length.

Mr. STANLEY: The Ruling was that while Amendments which imposed a charge on the rates could be moved in Committee they could not be moved on Report.

Mr. SPEAKER: These particular Amendments would make a charge on the rates, and are therefore out of order on the Report stage.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does that mean that we shall not be able to discuss the question of exemptions at all? That would take away the whole substance of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: They have already been discussed at great length in other stages of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions with respect to employment certificates.)

5.1 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out "still," and to insert "for the time being."
This is purely a drafting Amendment and is necessitated because of an Amendment which I accepted making it necessary that a date should be inserted in the exemption certificate. There was a feeling as the words of the Clause stood that if an exemption certificate were granted on 1st May dating from 1st July, the child might have an excuse for not attending school during the intervening two months. The object of the Amendment is to make certain that there will be no such excuse.

Amendment agreed to.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out "An," and to insert "No."
This proposal was fully discussed in Committee, but those who are associated with me regard this as a most important

matter. This is called an Education Bill, and it raises the normal school age to 15. It is not a Bill primarily to secure exemption, and we regard it as important that this point should be emphasised. Under its provisions 15 is to be the normal age for leaving school. This should be emphasised. There is a subtle difference between the proposal in the Bill and the Amendment. The Clause says:
An employment certificate shall be granted to the intended employer of the child if the issuing authority are satisfied,
but the Amendment proposes that no employment certificate shall be granted unless the authority are satisfied. If the Bill is a genuine effort to raise the school age to 15, why not say so in the Bill, so that employers and everyone else will realise that exemptions are exceptional and are not the normal practice? In Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that even if the issuing authority are satisfied they are still under no obligation to grant the exemption. That, to my mind, is rather a far-fetched objection to the Amendment, and I do not think that any education authority would take up the line suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment places the matter in a far better light than the words of the Bill, and I am sure it would do a great deal towards progress in the direction which we all desire.

5.5 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) has had exceptional experience of the administration of Education Acts. For years he has been associated with the education committee in his own area, and coming from him the Amendment naturally is important. I attach even more importance to it than the hon. Member. If this small word is altered, it will change the whole bias of the Bill. What we want, and what we understood was to be brought about by the Bill, is that the normal place of a, child up to the age of 15 shall be the school, and that only in exceptional circumstances, where a strong case is made out, will exemption be given. In Committee it became quite clear that the aim of the Minister was to bring about exactly the opposite effect, that the ordinary place of a child under the Bill is to be the workshop or the factory, and the exception that he should remain at school until 15 years of age. If we


accept the Amendment, it will mean that the child will stay at school unless the education authority are satisfied that there is a strong case for exemption. If the President of the Board of Education accepts the Amendment, he will be giving an assurance of the sincerity of his belief in the principle of extending the school-leaving age; if he does not, he is giving way to the pressure of employers and those reactionaries who do not want to extend the period of education for the children of the country. These small words have a significance wholly out of proportion to their size. I hope that all hon. Members who have studied the question of education will support the Amendment.

5.8 p. m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Amendment would alter the whole bias of the Bill. I have never understood, apart from purely electoral reasons, why the Bill should not have been framed on the lines suggested by the Amendment. The President of the Board of Education decided to allow exemptions, and the natural inclination would be to say that exemptions should be granted at the discretion of the local authority. That is not what the right hon. Gentleman is doing by the Bill. I look forward to a situation in which the number of exemptions will diminish and a larger proportion of children will remain in school. When that situation is reached it may be the natural step for an education authority to say that it will bring the system of exempions to an end, but as the Bill now stands a local authority would not have that right. The Bill says that a child has a right to exemption for beneficial employment, which has been interpreted to mean "any suitable job." That means any ordinary job which is suitable according to the accepted standard of the area. It means that a child has a right to be exempted for any ordinary job. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the rights of the child. What it really means is the right of an employer to cheap labour for any ordinary job. That is why the Amendment makes all the difference. It brings us back to the point that the natural protector of the child is the local education authority, but the Minister has so framed the Bill as to make it impossible for the local education authority to carry out its function fully.

5.10 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I hope the President of the Board of Education will accept the Amendment. It would give us an assurance that the Government were in earnest when they said that they were going to raise the school-leaving age to 15. They were, of course, pledged to give exemptions, but when we tried to get the Minister to put in a definite time we were defeated in Committee. If the Minister will accept this proposal he will re-establish the Government's position in the country so far as education is concerned. I believe my right hon. Friend is sincere in his desire to raise the school-leaving age, and he has had enough experience of local education authorities to know that exemptions are granted in the most trivial way. "Beneficial employment" means in many cases cheap labour for those people who will turn these children out when they reach 16 years of age. The country realises the position far better than apparently the Minister or the Government. If he would give a lead in this matter he would certainly carry the House of Commons and the whole of the country with him. I admit that there are some people who believe in the "little hands," those diehards who will never change as long as they live. I do not look on the Minister as a diehard, but as a young man who sees visions. It is said that it is the young men who see visions and the old men who dream dreams, but I am coming to the conclusion that it is the old men who see visions and the young men who go to sleep without even dreaming.
Outside the House there is the greatest disappointment about this Bill, a terrific disappointment, which will be very evident unless the right hon. Gentleman changes the whole bias of the Measure. He could do that by accepting the Amendment and making exemptions the exception, and not the rule. The Minister is lagging behind the country in this respect. Local education authorities are begging us to raise the school age. It is an extraordinary thing that the Minister of Education should be lagging behind the education authorities. As a rule they have to be given a lead, but in this case they are leading and the Government are following on behind. The Minister would have a majority of the hon. Members with him if only he would


give a lead, and I beg him to do so before it is too late. I know that he regrets tremendously having listened to the few employers who made him leave 300,000 children in blind-alley occupations. They are still there. When the Children Bill was brought in, I warned him that unless he brought forward legislation to cover those children at that time, he would never do it.
I warn him again that unless the Government give a lead the local authorities will not follow. The best of them are already doing it, but they find it very difficult, and we know that there are some education authorities which are in need of prodding by the Government. I wish that the House was full to-day, and that hon. Members interested in the welfare of the youth of the country and interested, I might say, in their Government, would ginger up the Front Bench. I implore the Minister to have the courage to say that he really means to raise the school-leaving age. I believe that in his heart he does mean that. This will be the acid test as to whether he means it or not. It is no good his trying to put us off as he did the other day when some of the old die-hard women said that they had sent five sons into employment and they had all done well. Those days are past. There exists an enormous amount of unemployment among juveniles from 18 to 21 years of age, and unless we definitely raise the school age, the numbers will be increased.

5.18 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think that there can have been few occasions on which some hon. Members returned to this House have more quickly forgotten one of the pledges on which they were returned. I do not believe for one moment that my Noble Friend is correct in saying that there is a majority in this House in favour of changing the emphasis of this Sub-section of the Clause as she suggests. If it were so, it would mean that there was a majority of Members supporting the National Government who had either not taken the trouble to read clearly the Memorandum issued by the Government, which dealt fully and explicitly with this subject, or, if they had read it carefully and based their election speeches on it, had forgotten a very important item in the reference to the raising of the school-

leaving age. I have here the Memorandum issued by the Government on the eve of the election, and that Memorandum dealt at great length with the Government's education policy. It was stated in it that:
the National Government have decided to legislate to raise the school-leaving age to 15 with a right to exemptions between 14 and 15 for beneficial employment.
That is the policy on which the Government went to the country and the policy on which we, as their supporters, were returned, and we shall be unfaithful to our pledges if we ask for the emphasis to be altered in such a way that the right which was promised would be taken away. I would ask hon. Members opposite to remember the enormous majority by which the country supported the policy of the Government. I cannot say what other hon. Members found in their own constituencies during the election, but I know that I should have had many questions put to me at my meetings about the proposal to raise the school-leaving age if, in the same breath that I announced the Government's intention to raise the age, I had not been able to say that there would be a right to exemption below the age of 15 for beneficial employment. Therefore I hold that my right hon. Friend is absolutely pledged to stick to the wording of the Clause as it is, and I cannot see how, now that I have reminded hon. Members of the policy so clearly stated by the Government in their Memorandum, they can do differently.

Viscountess ASTOR: I would like to ask the Noble Lady whether in her election address she stated what she considers to be beneficial employment?

Duchess of ATHOLL: The Government have defined it. I always hoped it meant employment which was of a healthy nature and which would not mean any overworking. I am glad that that is fully safeguarded in Clause 2. I would remind my Noble Friend, who cares so much for the health and welfare of children, that much of value has been added to the Clause in Committee in that respect. The child is not to be allowed to go into employment unless the authority is satisfied that his health is suitable, and there is a condition regarding the duration of the employment. Those two conditions strengthened the Clause in Committee in the interests of the child. I think the word "trivial,"


which my Noble Friend used in regard to this matter, when she said that the local authority could give a certificate for a trivial reason, is not really appropriate. It seems to me that Clause 2 will safeguard the employment of children below the age of 15 in a way which I believe will be beneficial in every respect, and which I hope will set an improved standard for the employment of children above that age. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment.
My Noble Friend referred to something that I said in a former speech about small hands being necessary in certain branches of the textile industry, and I believe the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) refused to believe me when I said that a shortage of juvenile labour existed in certain districts in Yorkshire and that machinery stands idle and adults are unemployed as a consequence. I have here the names of firms which have, or recently had, machinery standing idle for that reason, and I am ready to give those names in confidence to any hon. Member who desires to have them. I am told that the names of many more firms could have been secured if there had been time to collect them.

Viscountess ASTOR: This is a serious matter. Could the Noble Lady inform those firms that we could give them girls over 18 with small hands to do the job?

Duchess of ATHOLL: Those firms know their business well enough to provide small and suitable hands whenever they can.

Viscountess ASTOR: Cheap labour.

Duchess of ATHOLL: These children, even at a young age, get very good wages in Yorkshire, and much better than are given in our agricultural districts.

Mr. RILEY: I represent Dewsbury, a textile area, and the authorities there are in favour of raising the school-leaving age.

Duchess of ATH0LL: I think the hon. Member endorsed what I said about the shortage of juvenile labour in various districts in Yorkshire, and I was very pleased to have his endorsement, because a good many of his colleagues seemed to doubt the truth of my statement. I would further remind the House that because of the decline in the birth-rate, by

1943 there will be many fewer children of 15 years of age coming out of the schools than there are to-day. The birthrate in 1920 was 101, and those coming out to-day represent only 95 compared with 101, and the number will have fallen to 69 by 1943. I am just as anxious as anybody to see adult labour employed wherever possible, but I do say that in regard to certain processes which require small fingers, there ought to be kept open a loophole, provided it is certain that the children will work under beneficial conditions. Otherwise, we shall be placing a very serious handicap on one of our most important export industries and one which has to meet the competition of the textile industries of other countries. I will conclude by reminding hon. Members that not one of our great commercial competitors in Europe has raised the school-leaving age to 15. Switzerland has raised it in 10 Cantons out of 25. Norway is the only country—

5.24 p.m.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The Noble Lady is now getting rather far from the Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY: May I ask for your guidance, Sir? This Amendment is of a rather limited character and I would like to know how far we are entitled to discuss the whole question of exemptions on it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment is obviously of a very limited character. The point of this Amendment is whether the child shall have a right to exemption, unless the local authorities object, or whether the process shall be the opposite way round. I do not think that on this Amendment we can go into the entire question of whether or not exemptions are beneficial.

Mr. COVE: Shall we be allowed to reply to some of the statements that have been made? The Debate has now proceeded for some time, and I am very anxious to make a statement and to give the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western Perth (Duchess of Atholl) some recent facts about the matter on which she has been speaking. I do not think it would be appropriate to do so on the Third Reading since the Debate has proceeded rather far. I hope we may have a limited indulgence to reply to one or two of the statements that have been made.

Mr. EDE: Further to the point of Order, may I point out that the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western Perth (Duchess of Atholl) alluded to me personally. I did not interrupt her because I desired to hear her develop what she was pleased to call her argument with regard to the matter. I am not at all sure whether, under your Ruling, I should be allowed to reply to her if I should be so fortunate as to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair during the discussion. There is a perfectly good answer to her, but I am not sure it arises on this Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: With regard to the last point of Order, I was unaware that the Noble Lady had referred to the hon. Member. With regard to the remainder, I had better wait until the hon. Members are speaking.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should not have discussed the matter had it not been for the reference made to it by my Noble Friend. I do not wish to say anything more, except to ask hon. Members to keep some perspective in this matter and, as a background, to remember that none of the great commercial competitors of this country has raised the school-leaving age.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. COVE: We have heard a characteristically reactionary speech from the Noble Lady, a speech which we had anticipated she would give. I am in agreement with her with regard to one of her statements, that there is a shortage of juvenile labour in some industries. As a matter of fact, there may be a shortage of juvenile labour even in the textile industry, but that does not complete the picture or meet the problem. What is happening undoubtedly is that while children are being absorbed into industry immediately they leave school, it is being done at the expense of their older brothers and their fathers. I would like in this connection to quote from the "Manchester Guardian" of this morning. It is a statement by the President of the United Textile Factory Workers' Association, and it is very germane to the statement which has been made by the Noble Lady. It is as follows:
Mr. Robertson said that the past year had brought no relief to workers in the cotton industry. They were still faced with the problem of many thousands of adult

operatives being unable to obtain work, while at the same time there was a real shortage of juvenile labour in the spinning section of the industry. This could only mean that the industry was going through such a difficult period that parents would not put their children into the mills.
I want both the Noble Lady and the Minister to face that problem. The fact is that our staple industries have become blind-alley occupations. That is a social fact which the Government will have to take into consideration.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is now getting to the point at which I stopped the Noble Lady. We cannot go into all those questions on this Amendment.

Mr. COVE: I only wish to follow up what has already been said. The Debate having proceeded so far, I had hoped for a chance to reply to the Noble Lady. Let me say, briefly, that the problem is not only a problem of the distributive trades. We know that there is a tragic problem in connection with the distributive trades, but there is also a tragic problem in connection with the textile industry, the coal industry and many other large industries. In this Bill there is a right to exemption, and the vast majority of those who get exemptions will go into blind-a11ey occupations, whether they go into the staple industries or into the distributive trades. If this is an Education Bill, why retain in it this right to put children into blind-alley occupations? Why not make it a real Education Bill and give the local authorities power to deal with the situation? As the provisions of the Bi11 stand, the local authorities will be at the mercy of a combination of employers and parents. The parents in great numbers will want their children to go to work simply because of the stress of poverty and economic conditions in the home. But is it for the State to say that the child ought to go to work, having regard to the terrible condition of unemployment existing in these industries?
As regards the distributive trades, I would recommend to hon. Members the fine analysis which has been made by Mr. Hiscock. Here is one striking fact. Only 8 per cent. of those who enter the distributive trades in their youth are found there at 45 years of age. As you ascend the age scale in these occupations,


you find growing unemployment. There is no security and old age—even middle age—for these people in the distributive trades, is fraught with the certain tragedy of unemployment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Even if the facts stated by the hon. Member are correct, and I am not trying to dispute them, I fail to see how the Amendment before us would affect the matter in the least.

Mr. COVE: I only wish to point out that in the Bill there is a right for the child to leave school for what is euphemistically called "beneficial employment." I say that means the certainty, in the vast majority of cases, of those children going into occupations where there is no security and, therefore, I ask why should we not put the emphasis on the local authority as this Amendment proposes? As it is, you will have a combination between parents and employers to get the children out of the school. The employers want cheap labour and the parents want the money at home. But should not this House and the Government in the present year of grace, say that these children ought to be kept in school, and give the local authorities power to keep them in school? There ought not to be within the Bill this right enabling children to go into blind-alley occupations.
I am sorry that under your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I cannot follow the Noble Lady into further detail on this question, but there is no doubt that the educational side of the Bill is but a shadow. There is no substance in it and the curious thing is that the more prosperous we are as a nation and the more work is available, the less substance there will be in the Bill. The better the nation can afford to keep the children at school the more demand there will be for the labour. I am not saying anything about the other part of the Bill, but as regards the first part of the Bill, it is not an Education Bill. The education authorities will be unable to make provision for the children who may be retained. If this Amendment were carried the local authorities would be better able to plan ahead. As it is how are they to know how many children will be in the schools at the end of three years? What provision can they make to ensure that when the Bill comes into operation three

years hence, the necessary arrangements will be available? If the local authorities have control of the whole thing you would get better educational administration and there will be, at least, some substance in the educational provisions of the Measure.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. MARKHAM: I rise to support the Amendment and I have been rather driven to do so by the attitude of the Noble Lady the Member for Western Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). She had the audacity to remind us of our Election pledges and it is on that point that I join issue with her. I certainly was under the impression, and I think most Members on this side of the House were under the same impression, that in the Government's manifesto on this subject, the pledge which we gave was that the school-leaving age should be raised to 15 and that such exemptions as were to be permitted would be exceptions and not the rule.

Mr. STANLEY: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member but he has chosen, as a supporter of the Government, to get up from a Government Bench and make that statement. Let me say at once that it is entirely untrue, and that before he makes his speech he ought to refresh his memory by reading extracts, both from the statement of Government policy and the manifesto on educational policy which accompanied it.

Mr. MARKHAM: I join issue with the Minister on this point. Do I understand the Minister to say that it was the deliberate intention of the Government that this House should pass a Bill under which exemptions were to be the rule and not the exception?

Mr. STANLEY: If, as I say, the hon. Member will refresh his mind by reading the education manifesto, he will see that it contains clearly the statement already referred to, as to the right to exemption for beneficial employment under the age of 15.

Viscountess ASTOR: But was not the first point that we were to raise the school age? The other came afterwards.

Mr. MARKHAM: The Minister knows perfectly well that I have been a loyal supporter of this Government and he has no right to turn round and accuse me of


disloyalty on this point. I am honest and sincere in this matter, and my whole intention in fighting at the last. election on the side of the Government was to support the reforms which I believed the National Government had planned, and this was one of them. There was the definite statement that the school age was to be raised to 15. That was point No. 1. Point No. 2 was that there might be exemptions in exceptional cases. [HON. MEMBERS. "No!"] That is the issue and I say, frankly, that if the Minister drives us to a decision on that issue I am on the opposite side on this question. Let there be no mistake about it. I put sincerity and honesty on major questions like this before everything else.
Let us get at the root of the Amendment, of which I am in favour. As I see it, no exemptions can be secured unless about six separate sets of conditions are fufilled by the employer. He has to satisfy the local education authority or the issuing authority that he has fulfilled those conditions. What I am not satisfied about in my own mind is the issuing authority. The Noble Lady the Member for Western Perth and Kinross knows full well that the majority of county councils in this country are full of people with mentalities like her own, who are willing to drive children into industry instead of giving them education. It is at this precise point that we differ. I wish to make perfectly certain that the children of this country shall be protected against people like the Noble Lady, and for that reason I support the Amendment. It is a minute, indeed infinitesimal Amendment, as regards the wording, but in implication and emphasis it is of first-class importance. I support it because when I stood for South Nottingham at the election I was resolutely determined to get the school age raised to 15, with few exceptions, and those only in exceptional cases. If, as I say, the Minister forces us to an issue on this question, instead of acting reasonably and accepting the Amendment, he will drive us into the Opposition Lobby.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. EDE: We have now the usual spectacle of the Government's supporters telling the Government exactly what they ought. to do, but I have never yet

in this Parliament heard a Minister turn round and deal quite so emphatically with one of his supposed supporters. I hope it does not mean that there is any drastic punishment in store for the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) but it gives us a very good example of what the unsuspecting National Labour party were led into at the last General Election when they pinned their faith to the Tory party's interpretation of their own manifesto. May I deal with the question raised by the Noble Lady the Member for Western Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). I am sure she realises I did not interrupt her at the time because I thought it would be better to wait until I could make a connected reply to her statement. I am not impressed by the statement that certain millowners in Yorkshire say that there is a shortage of juvenile labour.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Did not the hon. Member receive a letter early in April, in which I gave him evidence and the names of firms? He did not acknowledge the letter.

Mr. EDE: Yes, the Noble Lady said she was going abroad and, therefore, she sent me the letter I never had a letter from a Duchess before. I am not like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I had not any friends among the duchesses. There are no duchesses on my side in politics.

Viscountess ASTOR: There will be, if you get over here.

Mr. EDE: The Noble Lady did send me a letter and gave me the names of certain firms. It is no part of my job to recruit juvenile labour for mill owners, but I cannot help feeling, in view of the desire of the Ministry of Labour to transfer juveniles from the distressed areas, that juvenile unemployment—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot go into those matters now.

Mr. EDE: That is part of the difficulty. The Noble Lady makes the insinuation that I did not accept her word for some reason. I want to assure here that I did not doubt her word or her statement as to what the millowners said. But my view is that there is good reason for suspecting that the millowners are not stating the whole truth in what they say


to the Noble Lady. However, I wish to deal with the actual wording of the Amendment. The Bill does two things only. It imposes a duty and confers a power on local authorities. It imposes a duty under this Sub-section on local authorities to grant certificates. The governing words of the Sub-section are, "an employment certificate shall be granted" by the local authority. There is, of course, the power to aid voluntary schools later in the Bill. Any local authority reading this Sub-section is bound to have regard to the emphatic nature of these opening words, and the Minister was quite emphatic upstairs in regard to them.
The way in which he smiled at the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) who alluded to the fact that these were two very small words, showed that he remains of the same view and that the interpretation which I have placed upon his view is the correct one. What we desire is—and it was a point taken by the hon. Member for South Nottingham—that the duty should be on the local authority to retain children in school unless it is satisfied with the conditions. The whole question of the administration of this Bill is involved in the change of these two small words of two letters each. I have no doubt that many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, who recollect the bands of hope of the nineties of last century, will remember the hymn that we sang with great gusto:
 'No' is a very little word,
In one short breath we say it.
The chorus of that hymn was:
Have courage, my boy, to say 'no.' 
We have not so far instilled that courage into the Minister. He is like the man who never has the courage to say "no" when he ought to. On the other hand, he says "no" on every occasion when he ought to say "yes" We know that the right hon. Gentleman sincerely desires that this Bill shall be a success. He has shown in the reply he made to the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. H. Macmillan) that he desires that a good example shall be set to the country in the matter and that, as far as possible, employers shall be encouraged not to make applications for these certificates. There is, however, one thing I venture to suggest to him

that he can do without breaking any election pledges. He can make it easier for the local authorities to resist those applications which are on the border-line, and it is just that kind of point which is raised by the wording of this Sub-section.
If the right hon. Gentleman would give us the wording for Which we ask it would enable the local authorities still to give exemptions in those cases where it was fully proved, but, in the cases where there was an element of doubt, the alteration of the wording would swing the opinion of the committee deliberating on the matter over to the direction of retaining the child in school. It is because I am seriously concerned about the administration of the Bill, which will not be so much in the Minister's hands as he imagines, but will be in the hands of sub-committees meeting in remote places and very often scrutinising the exact wording to see whether they can get any guidance from it, that I should be very reluctant to see the Bill go out with the words, "an employment certificate shall be granted" as the governing words of the Sub-section.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. RADFORD: This Amendment has suffered severely at the hands of its supporters because of the excesses to which they have gone in supporting it. To listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), for instance, one would think that the Clause simply provided that there was a bounden duty on local authorities to grant exemption certificates if they are demanded. That was the tone also of the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The hon. Member for Aberavon said that in view of the reluctance of parents to put their children into the big basic industries, it would mean that they would find their way into blind-alley occupations. I feel that some of the hon. Members who have spoken cannot have read the wording of the Clause. It says:
An employment certificate shall be granted to the intended employer of the child, if the issuing authority are satisfied, after consultation. with the local committee for juvenile employment, if any, and after consideration of the health and physical condition of the child, that the employment will be beneficial to the child.
Then it goes on to say:
The issuing authority in determining whether any employment will be beneficial


shall have regard as well to the prospective as to the immediate benefit to the child, and in particular to—

(a) the nature and probable duration of the employment, the wages to be paid, and the hours of work;
(b) the opportunities to be afforded to the child for further education;
(c) the time available to the child for recreation; and
(d) the value, in relation to the future career of the child, of any training or other advantages afforded by the employment."

Mr. COVE: Will the hon. Member tell us what that means? The Minister failed in Committee to tell us what it means.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member can do that on this Amendment.

Mr. RADFORD: The meaning of Clauses in some of our Bills is obscure, but in this case it seems to be unusually clear. I am of opinion that the wholesale putting of children into blind-alley occupations is amply safeguarded against by the wording of the Clause, unless, of course, local authorities grossly fail in their duties, which I do not think they will. Some hon. Members have referred to themselves as protectors of the children. If I had known of anyone who was taking care to keep me at school a year longer than I ought to stop, I should not have regarded him as my protector. I left at 15 and I would have left at 13 if I had not been prevented by my father, I would say, particularly for the benefit of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), that there is a form of education which children can pick up after they have left school that may well be more valuable to them than merely poring over lessons. So far as their being over-worked.—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now getting right away from the Amendment.

Viscountess ASTOR: The hon. Gentleman speaks about leaving school at 13 and of having to stay until 15. May I ask him whether he regrets it?

Mr. RADFORD: I regretted it bitterly at the time.

Viscountess ASTOR: But not now?

5.54 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I hope that even at this stage the Minister will reconsider his refusal to accept tin Amendment. Those who will have to administer this Measure, particularly in large places like London, where there is a demand for so many juveniles in employment, must realise the difficulty there will he to a body like the Education Committee of the London County Council in having to deal with the many claims for exemption which are likely to be made. We should lay stress on the fact that no employment certificate should be granted unless certain conditions are fulfilled. The Bill, however, places the emphasis on the granting of the certificate rather than on giving consideration to the various conditions. We have heard much as to the reasons why the Amendment should be rejected. I am not prepared to accept, as I said in Committee, what the Noble Lady said with regard to machinery standing idle in Lancashire or Yorkshire as the result of juveniles not being in employment.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Will the hon. Member allow me to send him the names of the firms?

Mr. KELLY: The Noble Lady may, if she likes, but she might have sent them after I had denied it in Committee, so that I could have made investigations.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am afraid that I did not remember—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! We are not in Committee.

Mr. KELLY: Those who are dealing with these places and industries have no knowledge whatever of machinery being idle because of children not being taken into employment. To leave this Bill in such a way that exemption is stressed rather than the raising of the age to 15 will not carry out what the people of the country expected. The hon. Member who last spoke reminded us that he would not as a boy have looked upon those who kept hire at school as protectors. I lived for many years in the same city from which he comes and I have heard many individuals there who asked you to look at certain people because they had left school at such an early age and had made themselves into prosperous merchant princes. Some of them would even suggest to-day that we might have the age much lower. The


hon. Member might not look upon those who kept him at school as protectors, but many of us have been working for the children for many years, not as a virtue, but rather as a duty, because we expect that if children have a better chance of remaining at school for a further period they will be better able to take their place in life when they grow to manhood and womanhood.

5.58 p.m.

Sir J. WITHERS: As a whole-hearted objector to any exemptions at all, I support the Amendment in spirit. I am sorry to say, however, that I feel bound not to vote on that line. I have looked into the matter carefully and I find that the Government undoubtedly came in with a definite pledge that there should be rights of exemption. That being so, and as I am not going to turn my back to Government pledges, I am bound with great regret to have to vote against the Amendment.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. BELLENGER: There was an occasion not long ago when the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford) moved a Motion asking the House to approve of the abolition of homework for school children. As a result, he got a reputation as an educational reformer, but, after listening to his speech to-day, I must say that he got that reputation somewhat under false pretences. We are not concerned with the squabbles which take place between supporters of the Government and the Government. I am afraid they are too frequent these days. What the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) said to the Minister to-day indicates what was in that hon. Member's mind when he went to the electors to ask them to vote for him. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) has told us that he is in sympathy with this Amendment, but that he will not support it in the Division Lobby. What are we to understand from that? I take it that he is as sincere as most of us are in our endeavours to raise the school-leaving age. This Amendment is put forward with the object of really inducing the Government to make the school-leaving age 15, yet the hon. Member for Cambridge University says that he cannot support it in the Division Lobby.
I hope that those hon. Members who have spoken from the other side of the House, including the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will go into the Division Lobby against the Government if the Government will not accept the Amendment. The whole test of the sincerity of the Government on the question of raising the school-leaving age to 15 is embodied in this Amendment. The Government know, I might almost say by the unanimous verdict of education authorities all over the country, that the country does want the school-leaving age raised to 15.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must remember that this Amendment does not do away with exemptions altogether, and that he cannot go into the whole question of the school-leaving age.

Mr. BELLENGER: Yes, Sir, but I understand that if this Amendment is accepted it will mean that exemptions will become the exception rather than the rule, and that is the point to which I am addressing my remarks. It is for that reason that I am asking the Noble Lady and other speakers who have supported the Amendment to go into the Lobby against the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: But this Amendment does not do away with exemptions.

Mr. BELLENGER: I am bound, of course, to accept your Ruling, but what I do say is that the Clause as it stands will not raise the school-leaving age to 15, and that is what we and the country understood the Government to promise both in their election manifesto and in their speeches elsewhere.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: As I understand it, the effect of this Amendment, if passed, would be to enable a particular local authority to decide to grant no exemptions at all in its area.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and if that is the case surely it is directly contrary to the manifesto of the. Government. Whenever we invoke that manifesto hon. Members opposite seem to think we are doing something very retrograde. When I supported that manifesto it did not occur to me that I was adopting any retrograde policy. I was working for what I believed was a dovetailing system between work and education, which I felt was desirable, and I


should have thought that hon. Members opposite would regard the local authorities as suitable people to deal with the question. I have seen juvenile employment committees at their work and they have done it extremely well. No hon. Member opposite can say that those committees have not an extremely good idea of who are good employers in a town and who are not, and in any case the Bill lays down perfectly clear conditions for their guidance. The last condition, in particular, says that they must have regard to:
The value, in relation to the future career of the child, of any training or other advantages afforded by the employment.
The charge will be laid at the door of any local authority which lets a child go into a blind-alley employment, and I think that the future of the child is amply safeguarded in any district where a local authority does its duty properly. I have more faith in the local authorities than hon. Members opposite and I believe that they do intend, in this sphere, to do their job properly.

Viscountess ASTOR: Has the hon. Member looked into the areas where the school-leaving age has been raised and noticed what an enormous percentage of the exemptions have been given for children to go as vanboys, messengers, and the rest of it? Look at Plymouth. Look at Bath.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I hope that I may intervene in this Debate for a moment, I am afraid with the object of bringing it back from some of the interesting paths we have traversed to the Amendment which my hon. Friend moved a considerable time ago. The growth of the Amendment since then must have astonished its author. I am in a different position from many hon. Members, because on Third Reading, unfortunately, I am bound to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I do not propose on this Amendment to anticipate the arguments I shall have to meet and the remarks I shall have to make on the Third Reading, though I am amply prepared to meet those who have criticised the Bill both on its educational merits and the practicability of its machinery. I am not sure that the House has fully realised the meaning of the Amendment

we are discussing. The hon. Member who moved it and the hon. Baronet who seconded it indulged in masterpieces of understatement. They represented it as effecting a mere shifting of emphasis, that whereas under the Bill as drafted the emphasis was rather on the granting of exemptions, under the Amendment it would be more on the refusal of exemptions. If that were all that was in the Amendment, if it made no greater alteration in principle than that, if it were only a direction, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), inferred to the local authorities, perhaps there would be no great exception to it. But, whether it is so intended or not, the Amendment would go far beyond that point.
If the Amendment were accepted it would be possible for any local authority to pass a resolution to say, "We will not grant any exemptions to any child under any circumstances." It would do away entirely with the provisions of the Bill, do away with the individual investigations into the suitability of a particular child for a particular job, and, in fact, allow the local authority in a particular area to decide for themselves in one way a question which Parliament has decided for the country as a whole in another way. I know that many arguments can be advanced against the system of exemptions, and those arguments I shall deal with on the Third Reading to-morrow, but I think hon. Members will agree that if we are to abolish exemptions it should be done by the decision of the House of Commons for the country as a whole, and not by the decision of one local authority for one particular area.
I hope I did not display unnecessary heat in dealing with the hon. Member behind me. I have no concern, of course, with what he said during his election, or with his own views upon this particular Amendment, but what I did resent was—what perhaps he did not mean to say—the idea that the Government, in introducing the Bill, were being false to their election pledges. I am not going to read the Government's manifesto, hon. Members may agree with it or not, but no one can challenge the fact that we are carrying out exactly what we promised then to do; and, also, there is no doubt that to accept this Amendment would not be merely to shift slightly the emphasis, as the Mover and Seconder


said, but would be to destroy the right of the parent to choose whether his child should take beneficial employment when the character of the employment had been determined, or whether it should remain at school, and it would give a local authority power by resolution to dispense entirely with applications in individual cases and to abolish exemptions altogether in its area. For that reason I am unable to accept the Amendment.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I think the President of the Board of Education has made a point in replying to this Amendment which, in one sense, disposes of a good many of the arguments which have been used in support of it, but what surprises me a little is that the Noble Lord has said—

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member must not promote me.

Mr. EVANS: I should be very sorry to promote the right hon. Member. I am not one of those who has taken any obstructive attitude towards this Bill. I voted for the Second Reading on different grounds from many of my hon. Friends who sit around me, and I did that for a special purpose and a special reason. I am not going to deal with the rather heated interlude between the right hon. Gentleman and one of his supporters behind him as to the precise effect of the manifesto at the General Election, but my attitude to this Bill on Second Reading was dictated by the fact that I thought the Bill was capable in Committee of being amended in a, direction which I believe is in accordance with this Amendment. What is the real object of the Bill? Is it to raise the school-leaving age? If that is the main object the Clause, as it stands, is designed to defeat that object. I thought that if in Committee an Amendment of this character were accepted, while the main object of the Bill would be to raise the school-leaving age the giving of permission to particular children to leave school before the age of 15 would be the exceptional thing and not the ordinary thing. As the Clause stands the issue of an employment certificate, which is to be granted in certain events, will become the normal thing, and the purpose of the Amendment is to transfer the bias, to shift the onus, from one side to the other.
Some hon. Members opposite have suggested that that is a small thing, but with due respect I do not think it is. I think it goes to the very root of the purposes of the Bill, and gives a clear indication as to the hopes of those who are responsible for it. Do they want it to be a real success in the educational sense of raising the school age to 15, or not If they do, let them put the onus of granting exemptions opposite to what it is now. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself adopted this argument, but some speakers on the other side did, and they said it made little difference. Speaking with some knowledge, acquired from an examination of the way in which various local authorities work, I venture to say that it makes a lot of difference.
I have no doubt that many local authorities will be anxious to make this Bill effective from the educational point of view, but others will take a different standpoint, and their object will be not to make it an effective educational advance but to look out for means of securing exemptions and exceptions. If you say to a local education authority "A certificate can be granted, if," it means one thing to that type of authority, but if you say "No authority can, unless," you are putting upon them the burden of inquiry and, if they do their work honestly and conscientiously, the burden of satisfying themselves that in each case conditions have been established which entitle them to go outside what is conceived to be the purpose of this Bill. While you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled before you came in, that in one sense this Amendment is very limited in character, it seems to raise a very great and important principle, and the attitude of the Government towards that principle will decide my attitude upon the Third Reading.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before this Debate proceeds any further, I find, after having listened to the discussion, that I am placed in a difficulty. When I read the Amendment first, it did not appear very important, as it was putting the onus upon one authority instead of upon another. From hon. Members' speeches I find that the main object of the Amendment is to diminish exemptions, and in that case the Amendment would be out


of order because it would create a charge. As that appears to be the attitude of hon. Members, I must rule that the Amendment is out of order.

Sir P. HARRIS: The character of the Bill leaves the question of exemptions elastic and it is hardly possible to suggest that it would or would not impose a charge. I suggest that the Amendment does not transgress your Ruling.

Mr. KELLY: I have tried to find in what way the Amendment creates a charge, but it appears rather to decrease the charge. We have to remember that there will be many more exemptions if the language of the Bill remains. We might have as many as 60,000 or 70,000 in London.

Mr. SPEAKER: In selecting this Amendment I was not aware that its object was to diminish the number of exemptions, which would therefore increase the amount upon the rates.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: May I put it to you, Sir, that this would not increase the charge, and that it would probably lessen the charge, because the staffing arrangements of the schools will be a vital factor in this matter? If the Amendment were carried, it would mean a larger number of pupils in proportion to the staff. That is vitally important.

Mr. SPEAKER: That might be the case, or it might work in the opposite direction.

6.20 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out "the intended employer of."
As the Bill is worded, it introduces a new principle to our education legislation. In giving exemptions and deciding the future of children, the only consideration, so far, has been the well-being of the children, in consultation with the wishes and desires of the parents. Now, for some reason or other, the right hon. Gentleman is putting the employer in the position that he has to come to a local education authority and ask for the services of a particular child. I suggest that that is a very undesirable principle to introduce into our education legislation. We are setting up a very elaborate machine and putting upon the

local authority the responsibility of deciding whether a child shall have exemption or not. What should be decisive should be, not the interests of the industry, the employer or the manufacturer, but the interests of the child in consultation with the parents. It is vital that the parent or guardian should be brought into the matter. It is unfair to put upon a small child of 14, who is naturally desirous of seeking adventure and new experience, and of cutting his connection with school, the responsibility entirely in this matter. I emphatically object to the employer being brought into it.
It is not in the interests of the employer to put upon him the responsibility of trying to lead a child away from school. He has to go cap in hand to the advisory committee, or the local education authority, and ask for the services, or the use, of a particular child. The Amendment would work for the most effective operation of the exemption Clause, and tend to prevent a child going into undesirable channels of occupation. At the same time, it would enable the authority of the parents over the child to be exerted. When exemptions are given, it would be after consultation with the parent, and the well-being of the child would be the main consideration.

6.24 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am bound to say that, in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, the Amendment is very likely to impose a charge upon the rating authorities. The Bill will be worked very largely through sub-committees who will, I fear—and everybody knows it—be influenced where applications are made by employers whom they know and respect and whom they will not altogether like to offend. If you put the employer into the Second position, or leave him out, and if exemption has to be applied for in association with the parent or guardian, probably fewer exemptions will be given, and therefore a charge will be created if the Amendment is carried. If we could surmount that difficulty, the point is clear, we want to lay emphasis in these employment certificates upon the action of the parent or guardian on behalf of the child, and not to bring the employer into it, with all


the influence which he may have on the sub-committees which will do the work.

Mr. SPEAKER: As Pas been stated by the right hon. Gentleman who has seconded the Amendment, the Amendment is very much like the previous one. If it was put down merely to diminish the number of exemptions, as was the previous Amendment, 't would be out of order.

Sir F. ACLAND: Having listened to your Ruling, I feel bound to point out how extraordinarily difficult it is to amend this part of the Bill in any way whatever.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow us to discuss this Amendment. The right hon. Baronet rather went out of his way to say that it might increase the charge upon the rates, but for most of us this is an Amendment of machinery which could not possibly have that effect.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly the reason why I allowed it in the first instance. I thought it was a matter of machinery.

Sir P. HARRIS: That is the purpose of my Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: If it is treated as such I will allow it to proceed.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I hope that the hon. Baronet will not press the Amendment, because it seems to take away from the Bill one of the only safeguards that employment will be beneficial. The principle of the scheme is that an employment certificate shall be granted to an employer and that the certificate shall be hedged about with conditions. The local authority, in considering whether the employment is beneficial, can take into account all sorts of facts in relation to that employment. They may then state the conditions of the employment upon the certificate, and if they are not satisfied that the conditions are being observed they may withdraw the certificate. If the employer never has to secure a certificate there will be no effective control of him, and the chance of the word "beneficial" being effective is very much reduced.

6.29 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I agree with what has just been said. There is no question that, if the employer has nothing to do with the certificate, the local authority has no hold over him. The local authority will be in a far better position to ask questions than will the parents, and they have much more knowledge of general industrial conditions. It seems to me that the certificate would be practically worthless if it were given only to the child or to the parent. Nobody wishes to destroy the influence of the parent over the child, but in a matter of this kind the local authority are much better able to drive a good bargain with an employer on behalf of a child.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I do not quite understand, even now, the purpose of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. I quite appreciate that what we have to consider are the wishes of the parents, and not of the employer, but the words which it is sought to leave out have nothing to do with consulting the employer; they do not refer to an application; they simply say that the certificate shall be granted to the employer. The hon. Baronet will realise that it is the employer who has to undertake the conditions upon which the exemption is granted, and he has to be responsible for the observance of the terms. First of all, he has to tell the authorities the terms that he is prepared to observe, and it seems to me that the obvious person to whom the certificate setting out the terms of employment should be handed is the person who is bound by those terms, and on whom the penalty will fall if they are not observed. Therefore, I think that the words which the hon. Baronet proposes to leave out are really an indispensable piece of machinery, without which it would be almost impossible to safeguard the conditions of the employment.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If the employer holds the certificate, he holds a certain power over the boy should he happen to fall foul of him in his employment. It is no use the Minister shaking his head; I know from personal experience that these are powers that can be used by the employer of labour over the boy, as I have seen time and again, in cases of quite trivial misconduct or anything else. In


legislating in this House we have to remember that we have always to legislate in our mind's eye for the bad employer of labour. Some hon. Members are always trying to show that employers are absolutely all right, that everything can be left to them, that they are very nice and generous, and so on. It is not true—

Viscountess ASTO R: Some of them are.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We have to legislate to protect the working-class boy from the bad employer of labour, and I am afraid that to hand this certificate to the employer of labour will be to hand away a certain amount of power over the poor boy—because it must not be forgotten that it is the poor boys that we are dealing with here, not the sons of the rich, but the sons of those who have nobody to take their part. This power over the poor child is being given into the hands of the employer, so that he will not only hold the weapon of starvation, but also the weapon of this certificate. I would ask the Minister whether he has considered the matter from that point of view.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I have. My attention has been called to the fact that it was rather fully debated in the Scottish Standing Committee, and these fears were expressed there. I have gone into the matter very carefully, and am satisfied that there is no ground for these fears at all. This certificate gives the employer no hold over the child whatsoever. If a child is employed by one employer, and does not like the job, he can make application to the local authority for exemption for another job. Even if the employer does not hold the certificate itself, he must have a copy of it, because he is bound by its terms, but I cannot see that the possession of the certificate by the employer could give him any power whatsoever over the boy.

6.35 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: Supposing that the boy is dismissed, will he have to find some other employer to apply for exemption, or will the exemption certificate automatically remain in force?

Mr. STANLEY: If the boy is dismissed, it will be the duty of the employer to return the certificate to the authority,

and it will be cancelled. The boy will then be in the position of having to find a job. Until he gets a job, he has to go back to school.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: What would happen if the boy had not been dismissed, but if, on account of disagreement between him and the employer, he desired to leave and go to work for another employer? Would the new employer make application to the late employer, or to the local authority?

Mr. STANLEY: He would make application to the local authority. The old employer would not come in.

Amendment negatived.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, after "satisfied," to insert:
that the parent of the child desires the employment for the, child and are also satisfied.
The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) called attention during the Committee stage to the fact that, although obviously we all intended that the parents should have to express their wishes, that was not stated anywhere in the and I promised that I would put down an Amendment to include it. Hon. Members will see that one of the conditions which must be fulfilled before a certificate is granted will now be that the authority must be satisfied that the parent of the child desires the employment for the child. I notice that the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has an Amendment on the Paper which refers to the parents or guardians of the child, but that point is covered by the fact that "parent" is defined in the Education Act, 1921, as covering a guardian, and also, I think, all those who have the control of children.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: We consider that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has put down covers the point raised by the hon Member for Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan).

Sir P. HARRIS: It was because I had seen this Amendment of the Minister that I did not move my earlier Amendment—in page 2, line 26, after "child," to insert "in association with the parents or guardians of such child." I think


that the insertion of the words proposed by the Minister will substantially improve the Bill, and will give some protection against exploitation of the child.

Amendment agreed to.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out "after consultation with," and to insert "and."
This Amendment and the next Amendment standing in my name—in page 2, line 27, after "any," to insert "are satisfied "—are inter-dependent, and, if agreed to, they would make Sub-section (2) of the Clause read as follows:
An employment certificate shall be granted to the intended employer of the child, if the issuing authority are satisfied that the parent of the child desires the employment for the child and are also satisfied, and the local committee for juvenile employment, if any, are satisfied, and after consideration of the health and physical condition of the child, that the employment will be beneficial to the child.
The object is that the education committee, in dealing with this matter, may have the opportunity of stressing the educational side of the child's position rather than the industrial or employment side. If there must be consultation with the local committee for juvenile employment before the decision is arrived at, it will take a considerable time. I can imagine what is likely to happen in London, with its great central committees, its 20 or more other committees, and the London County Council Education Committee, endeavouring to deal with these matters, if it is necessary first to consult the local committees for juvenile employment. In my view the local authority dealing with the school should be the authority to deal with the question of exemption. The insertion of the words "are satisfied" would simply mean that, if that body are satisfied, they may give the exemption with the conditions attached to it. I am sorry that we should have to give these exemptions, but, although I am an officer of the largest juvenile employment committee in the country, I still feel that the education authority ought not to wait, even for those of us who are concerned with these children in their first placing, until they decide on their position.

Mr. EDE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Would this be a convenient opportunity for the Minister to give some explanation of the way in which he foresees that this machinery is going to work? At present the juvenile employment committees in many areas are playing a very active part in finding the right jobs for the right children, so active that they are even holding up jobs from certain children in order to keep them ready for children whom they consider to be more suitable. That is done quite simply under the ordinary machinery, before the children leave school automatically, but here there will be a considerable number of children who are, so to speak, going to find jobs for themselves, and the local juvenile employment committees will at the most only play a passive part. Taking the case of the child who desires exemption, is there anything to ensure that the local juvenile employment committee shall still play the active part in finding for that child the right job that they play now in the case of the child leaving in the ordinary way? That is the problem that is raised. by this Amendment. I would call the attention of the President to the fact that, at the end of the discussion in Committee, he said:
I am prepared between now and the Report stage, to consult, as I shall no doubt have to do on several machinery points, with local authorities, to find out what their point of view is and to meet it where possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, (Standing Committee A), 26th March, 1936, Col. 100.]

Mr. STANLEY: That was not on this matter.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: No; it was on an Amendment dealing with the position of juvenile employment committees. In any case it is not important whether the right hon. Gentleman made a certain statement in Committee or not. Apart from that, I would ask him to make an explanation of the way in which he foresees that this machinery will work.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: Before I respond to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation, I might perhaps deal with the actual Amendment. I did not quite understand what the purpose was, nor does the hon. Member, I think, quite appreciate what the effect of his wording would be. It would be, instead of having one authority


whose decision on the question of exemptions would be final, to create two authorities both of whom would have to agree if the exemption were to be granted. The result would be that, if the local authority desired to grant the exemption but one of its own committees in an area where the local authority was responsible for juvenile employment did not want to grant it, there would be a conflict between the two and the exemption would not be granted. Equally there would be conflict between the local education authority and the juvenile unemployment committee. I am sure that cannot be the hon. Member's intention. I am sure he would wish that the final decision must rest with the responsible elected body. I could not possibly accept the Amendment.
With regard to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, it had escaped my mind, but I do not think he is quite correct when he says that it has anything to do with this. It was on a point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) with regard to an employer sending in a number of applications. As a matter of fact I consulted the London County Council and I found they were not afraid of the situation that the hon. Member thought would arise, and they did not feel the necessity for that Amendment. I should not like him to think that I promised to make inquiries which I did not subsequently make. With regard to this point, all these matters of machinery have to be settled in consultation with various local authorities. The organ of the local authorities in a recent issue encourages them, whatever their opposition might have been to the principles of the Bill, to co-operate, as they have always done, with the central authority afterwards in working it.
I should not like to tie myself down to details as to how this is going to work before I consulted the local authorities, but I do not anticipate a very great amount of difficulty. To start with, not a very large proportion of school leavers are placed through the juvenile employment committee. I do not see that it is at all impossible, in areas where a juvenile employment committee has been doing a good deal of placing work, for them to continue keeping the child at school even though the child is anxious

to leave at some other time than the end of the school year. There are very strict provisions in regard to leaving during the school term, but there is nothing to prevent a child saying, "I shall want to leave at the end of this term," and being put in touch with the juvenile employment committee during the term with a view to being put into a suitable job.
With regard to the method in which this consultation is to take place, that again must depend 011 the circumstances of the locality. It seems to me that there are three ways in which it can be done. You might lay down that all the applications for exemption are to go in the first instance to the juvenile employment committee for their remarks, and to be sent on from them to local authorities, or they might be sent to the local authority and then be sent to the juvenile employment committee for their remarks, and come back; or you could have a system by which a member of the juvenile employment committee sat with the local sub-committees who were advising on these exemptions and they would be available for consultation at the time. I can think of other ways in which this consultation could be carried out and I have no doubt that each will he able to fix on the one that suits best their own local conditions and circumstances. I hope I have given the right hon. Gentleman some idea of what I have in my mind, but the Amendment as drafted would be impossible.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that employment for juveniles is found mainly by the headmasters, but I can visualise that we shall perhaps be faced with the same problem as obtains in our secondary schools. A large number of children leave before the four years are actually completed, and I am expecting the same thing to arise when the age limit is 15. I wonder whether the education authority would have the right to consider the educational aspect before granting an exemption, in the case of elementary schools. I think that is vital. The problem confronting us in the secondary schools is the number of teachers that we have in proportion to the diminishing number of pupils. It is called educationally the "upper tops" problem. Unless the education authority.


has prior rights over the juvenile employment authority, they may so denude the school of pupils that they will have a substantial residue of staff. I wonder whether the emphasis will be placed on the education committee rather than on the juvenile employment authority.

Mr. STANLEY: I do not think it has very much to do with this Amendment, but it is clear that the final decision will rest with the education authority, and they have to exercise their duties as laid down in the Bill. They will have a discretion as to holding up any exemption that they grant until the end of the term.

Amendment negatived.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, after "consideration," to insert "by the medical officer."
We have been favoured with the intervention in this purely English Debate of two Scottish Members. I do not know what would happen to me if I went into a Debate on a Scottish Education Bill and offered my advice on the problems that confront them in Scotland, but this Amendment is brought forward because on the Scottish Bill a similar Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), and the Minister left it to the discretion of the Committee, which added the Amendment to the Bill, making it a requirement that this consideration of the health and physical well-being of the child should be undertaken by the medical officer. If we leave the words as vague as they are in the Bill, it would be possible for the consideration to be purely perfunctory. We discussed at some length this question of considering the suitability of the child's physique for the employment and the probable effect of the employment on the health of the child. The words here proposed will make sure that expert evidence will be available for the Committee advising the local authority whenever they have to reach their decision. It is true that the school medical records, and so on, will be available, but they may not be directed to the exact point covered by the specific employment for which the certificate is sought. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment so that the child may be safeguarded by the Committee having in front of it an expert medical opinion upon

the specific point raised by the application of the employer for a certificate for the particular employment.

Mr. COVE: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I have not had a very long time to consider this Amendment because it appeared on the Paper only this morning, but I understand it has already been discussed in the Scottish Standing Committee and accepted, although I am sure no one would like me to feel that I was tied by a Scottish precedent, just as Scotsmen would never for a minute think they were tied by an English one. I have every sympathy with the hon. Member's genuine desire to see that the medical facts in each case are properly considered, but I could not accept an Amendment which I believe would put upon local authorities a very great administrative burden. In any case it would be unnecessary and would give them no powers that they do not already possess. After all, the medical officer is their servant. Any local authority can tell its medical officer exactly what part he has to take in the consideration of these exemptions. The Amendment would extend to them no powers that they do not already possess.

Mr. EDE: It would impose a duty.

Mr. STANLEY: For the moment I am dealing with powers. I think we have to assume that local authorities are anxious to carry out their duties properly. Anyhow, before we come to the Third Reading hon. Members have to make up their minds on which side of the fence they are. Are local education authorities angels of educational light whose united demand for the abolition of exemptions could only fall on ears which are rendered deaf by the gentleman who dwells in the opposite part of the firmament, or are they people who have no educational aspirations whatever and cannot be trusted to administer the slightest part of the educational machinery without giving everything away to the employers? I do not mind which alternative they adopt, but I hope before the time comes they will, at any rate, have made their decision.
Seriously speaking, I feel that on this question of the health of the children you can trust the local authorities to see that the provisions of the Act are properly and


reasonably worked. The hon. Member, who knows a great deal about administration, will agree that the school medical history as it is now kept, after the recent circular of the board with a view to cooperation with the juvenile employment committee, will in the majority of cases give the authority the information that it requires. In response to that circular the medical history contains specific reference to the suitability of a child for certain categories of employment, and a good many of the questions which the local authority might ask will be covered by existing machinery. In any case where there may be doubt the school medical service is at the service of the authority, and I feel that it may be left there. I do not want to make the technical point, and I am sure it was not the intention of the hon. Member that it should so work out, but the effect of his Amendment would be that in London the

senior medical officer would have to inspect every one of he many thousands of school leavers during the year.

Mr. EDE: That is not the effect of the Amendment. There are many duties laid on the medical officer that are, in fact, discharged by his assistants.

Mr. STANLEY: I do not pretend to be a lawyer. I am bound to pass on to the House the advice I am given by my advisers, and it is their view that that would be the effect of the Amendment. The burden that would be imposed on the local authority administration is not worth the candle, and under the law as it stands the local authority has all the power necessary to carry out medical inspection.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 238.

Division No. 205.]
AYES.
[7.5 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, G. D.
Parker, H. J. H.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Potts, J


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D N.


Bellenger, F.
Hicks, E. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Unlv's.)


Bevan, A.
Holllns, A.
Riley, B.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Brooke, W.
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Cape, T.
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Compton, J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Kirby, B. V
Stewar, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker J. J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Westwood, J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGhee, H. G.
White, H. Graham


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Whiteley, W.


Frankel, D.
Maclean, N.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gallacher, W.
MacNeilI, Weir, L.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Markiew, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mathers, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maxton, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibbins, J.
Messer, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Mllner, Major J.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.)
Mr. Churleton and Mr. Groves.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddlsbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)





NOES.


Acland, Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Albery, I. J.
Aske, Sir R. W.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Assheton, R.


Agnew, Lieut.-comdr. P. G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Atholl, Duchess of




Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Balniel, Lord
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Petherlok, M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pickthorn, K. W, M.


Beaumont, M. W. (Ayiesbury)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Porrltt, R. W.


Bernays, R. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Radford, E. A.


Blindell, Sir J.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Boulton, W. W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Brass, Sir W.
Harbord, A.
Rickards, G. W. (Sklpton)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Harvey, G.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbrldge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rowlands, G.


Bull, B. B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ruggles-Brlae, Colonel Sir E. A.


Burghley, Lord
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Holdsworth, H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salt, E. W.


Butler, R. A.
Hopkinson, A.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Samuel, M. R. A, (Putney)


Cary, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Scott, Lord William


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Selley, H. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Hunter, T.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Channon, H.
Jackson, Sir H.
Simon, Rt, Hon. Sir J. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st).


Christie, J. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Smiles, Lleut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Clarkeh, F. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Somervllle, D. G. (Wlllesden, E.)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Latham, Sir P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (Wm'l'd)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S. G'gs)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Storey, S.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Leckle, J. A.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Critchley, A.
Lees-Jones, J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Leigh, Sir J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crooke, J. S.
LennoX-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Levy, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F,


Crossley, A. C.
Lewis, O.
Sutcllfle, H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Llddall, W. S.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Culverwell, C. T.
Llewellln, Lleut.-Col. j. J.
Tate, Mavis c.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Lloyd, G. W.
Taylor, Vlce-Adm. E. A. (Padd., s.)


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


De Chair, S. S.
Lovat-F rater, J. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mabane, W. (H[...]ddersfield)
Tltchfield, Marquess of


Denville, Alfred
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Touche, G. C.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Drewe, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Tryon, Major Ht. Hon. G. C.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wakefleld, W. W.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
McKle, J. H.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macmlllan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dunglass, Lord
Magnay, T.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Eales, J. F.
Mannlngham-Buller, Sir M.
Wardlaw- Milne, Sir J. S.


Eastwood, J. F.
Margeeson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Eckersley, P. T.
Markham, S. F.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maxwell, S. A.
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wlckham, Lt.-Cot. E. T. R.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Emrys-Evan, P. V.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wllloughby de Eresby, Lord


Ersklne Hill, A. G.
Moreing, A. G.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hltchin)


Fildes, Sir H.
Morgan, R. H.
Windlor-Cllve, Lleut.-Colonel G.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fleming, E. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Munro, P.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nail, Sir J.
Wragg, H.


Furness, S. N.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.



Ganzonl, Sir J.
Orr-Ewlng, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Dr. Morris-Jones and Captain


Gluckstein, L. H.
Peake, O.
Water house.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Penny, Sir G.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from the second "date" to "shall," in line 33.

Mr. STANLEY: I have an Amendment on the Order Paper on more or less the same point. Would it be for the convenience of the House if we discussed the


two Amendments together, and took the Divisions separately?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am agreeable if the House is agreeable.

Mr. EDE: It is evident from the names that appear to this Amendment that this represents the effort of the "popular front" to improve the Bill. It has an even more distinguished measure of support than appears here because, as the Minister will recollect, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) told us that he went to the Committee anxious to secure two Amendments, of which this was the first. It certainly involves no additional charge, but has the effect of making charges that are already imposed by the Bill more effective. As the Bill is drafted, it will be possible for the local authority to grant a certificate from a date which is in the middle of, or in some part of the running of, the school term. Under the existing law no child is exempt from attendance at school except at the end of the term in which it attains the stipulated age. Therefore the Amendment, if carried, by deleting the provision which enables the authority to give the exemption during school term, would make the future administration of the law exactly follow the present administration.
There are many disadvantages in having children leave school during term. I never taught under the existing law, but I was frequently in charge of the top class of an elementary school under the old law when a child could leave school on the day on which it attained the appropriate birthday. There was one classical case where a parent turned up and demanded the release of her child at the end of the morning session, because she declared that he had been born 14 years before at a time prior to the opening of the afternoon session. It was not usually as meticulously sought as that, but there was this very disheartening experience both for the teacher and the class. We would start off perhaps with a class which in these days would be regarded as very much overburdened, and by the end of the term we should be down sometimes to rather less than half the numbers with which we started. While that was disheartening to the teachers, it also had a very disheartening and disconcerting

effect upon the children when they saw one after the other of their comrades leave the class in which they had all started together, and towards the end of the term all their ideas were centred upon how long it would be before they would be with the boys who had left a day or two before.
I recognise that the Minister, by the words which he proposes to introduce, thus proposes to emphasise the point of view he expressed in Committee that there should really be exceptional circumstances. I have never claimed that members of local authorities are angels. I have been a member of one or other local authority, and sometimes of more than one authority for 30 years, and I feel with regard to members of local authorities as the old lady did about the Bible class when she saw the members of the class walking into church in their surplices and remarked, "They looks like angels now, but I knows em." I do not believe that they are either angels or reactionary people any more than other men. They are merely human beings subject to like passions as ourselves, and the more one watches them, the more one realises that, in this personal kind of matter which revolves round the exemption of a particular child, they are subject to very great pressure. It is not confined to one section of the community serving on local authorities. Great pressure is sometimes brought at quite high-class dinner parties on members of local authorities, just as pressure is brought to bear at a trade union meeting or at a lodge meeting of members. I am not sure whether sometimes the class feeling which is exhibited as a result of a dinner party is not even greater.
I am sure that we desire that these exemptions should he decided upon other issues than that. Since 1918 we have gradually managed to impress upon the mind of the community that the end of the term is the appropriate time at which exemption should take place, and it will be a weakening of the whole system which we have been building up, if we allow the slight weakening which the Minister's words would produce. I plead earnestly with him as one who is engaged in administration to make the end of term the period by specific reference in the Bill, as would be the case if my Amendment were carried. There is nothing to


prevent an employer coming in front of the committee and asking that the employment should date from the end of term. If he sees the boy whom he wants, and the boy sees the job he wants, the arrangement can be made during the term, and the date of the certificate can be so arranged as to take effect from the end of term. There would be, in consequence, far less administrative inconvenience and a greater sense of responsibility on the part of the employer in, taking the child, if the formality to be observed were as stated in my Amendment. In the Committee stage there was very genuine pressure from the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the Committee, on educational grounds entirely, that this Amendment should be accepted by him, and I hope that as a result of the consideration which he has been able to give to it between that time and the present, he will have reached a decision that it is possible for him to accept the deletion of the words.

7.24 p.m.

Sir J. WITHERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should have thought that it was obvious to anybody accustomed to classes of any kind that to have children leaving in the middle of school term is naturally very upsetting to the children. It is very upsetting to those who remain and very disturbing to those carrying on the work of the school. I should have thought it was obvious that the best and right thing to do was that these exemptions should take place only at the end of the term.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. ORR-EWING: I entirely sympathise with the expressions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), yet I cannot really think that they have examined the words which it is proposed should be inserted in a later Amendment. They must recognise the fact that the work of a class certainly would be interrupted in the event of children leaving in large numbers at unusual times, the usual time, we would all expect, being the end of term. Yet we must equally visualise the possibility of exceptional circumstances arising which would give cause for a child leaving school at the request of an employer who felt that a particular vacancy

which had arisen at a particular moment could be suitably filled by a particular child—and I stress the particularity of the case—at the wish of the parent, and at the urge of the child himself who might see in the appointment a future which would not easily be found in any other job or form of employment. I believe that if the Amendment were accepted in the form in which it has been put before the House, it might work extremely unfairly in the particular case, and I urge upon the Government not to accept the Amendment for fear that it might bring injustice in cases where it is most important that justice should be done. I ask that the Amendment should be rejected, and that the words to be proposed later standing in the name of the President of the Board of Education should be inserted. That would seem to be a better way of solving the difficulty arising in particular cases.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. MARKHAM: The question which the House has to consider is which of these two Amendments better fits the intention of the House. Obviously before we can come to a decision some explanation is needed from the Minister, and particularly we should welcome an explanation of the term "owing to exceptional circumstances." If, as I hope, that phrase means that an exemption will be given only where, for example, the breadwinner has died, and it is more or less imperative for the child to go out and supplement the family income, I can perhaps understand the meaning of the Amendment, but if the second Amendment in the name of the Minister has the intention of meaning that exemption shall be granted in the exceptional circumstances of an industry suddenly requiring the influx of juvenile labour, then obviously one is very much against it, and would much prefer the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). From the educational point of view there is every conceivable argument in favour of keeping the child at school to the end of the existing term, and to that extent one agrees with the first Amendment, but if that Amendment in its terms prohibits a child from leaving school and taking up a position in the event of the death of the breadwinner, then obviously the second Amendment in the name of the


Minister would be preferable. I hope that the Minister will give a full explanation of what he means by "owing to exceptional circumstances."

7.30 p.m.

Mr. CROWDER: In my opinion we should not lay down hard and fast rules in this Bill, but should make the Bill permissive and leave the matter to the local authorities to decide. The Clause has already been amended in Committee. As originally drafted, it gave the local education authorities power to hold up exemptions until the end of the term if they so wished, but it now reads that the local education authorities are bound to hold up exemptions until the end of the term except in cases when, in their opinion, it is advisable that the child should take a good job which is offered to him or her during the term. I understand that the President of the Board of Education has promised to consider putting machinery into operation which will still further safeguard the power of the local authorities to stop any sort of wholesale exemptions during the term, and the only reason he has not accepted the Amendment is that, in his opinion, the exemptions given during the term should be very few in number.
We have heard eloquent speeches from hon. Members who know much more about education than I do, and I quite understand that, from the teacher's point of view, it would be better to have no child leaving during the term. It would also be easier for the local education officer who is dealing with the whole district, but it seems unfair and wrong for us in this House to lay down hard and fast rules for the local education authorities who, after all, should know what is best for their own localities and should be allowed to consider each case on its merits. We have to think of the child and whether he or she can get a really good job by leaving in the middle of the term, and we ought not to sacrifice the future of the child to the wishes of teachers or of local education authorities. The children are only to be exempted for beneficial employment, and I am sure the local education authorities will not give exemptions during the middle of the term unless it is of the utmost importance in their opinion, but if they do come to that conclusion, I

think it is unfair of us, without knowing the local condition:, to lay down hard and fast rules.
The Bill, fortunately or unfortunately, has to cover the whole of England. We cannot have separate Bills for London, for the towns, and for the rural districts, and therefore it seems to me that it is only fair to give as much laxity or latitude as possible to the local authorities to judge each particular case. I understand the Government are not in favour of any form of wholesale exemptions during the term, and it is very improbable that many will be given. It is, I believe, a custom of most employers to take on new juvenile labour at the end of the term, and it is much better for the employers and for the juveniles to act in this way, because each then gets a better selection—the employer more children and the children more jobs from which to choose.
It is bound to take some time for the certificate to go through, and it is rather hard that if employer, parent, and child agree on a job and application is put in during the holidays, but does not go through until the first week of the new term, the child should have to remain in the school for perhaps another three months. Furthermore, the child, if he knows that he has a job to go to, is not likely to get very much benefit from those three months in the school; and in these exceptional cases, where for some unforeseen circumstance a certificate has been delayed and does not come through until the new term has started. I think the local education authority should have power to grant an exemption. On the other hand, an employer might not be able to wait for three months, and he might go to another district to get a child for the job. We must remember that the terms in neighbouring districts do not all start at the same time. Therefore, if the Amendment were passed, children seeking jobs in another area would be at some disadvantage. Again, the child might lose a first-class job because the local authority were not empowered to let him go at the time he was wanted, even if a really good job, which might last him for life, was available.
We are all agreed that the provisions of the Bill should be flexible, and we do not want to lay down hard-and-fast rules. The educationists can put their case much more ably than I can, but I feel that in


special cases the parents in conjunction with the local education authorities should have the power to get exemptions during the term. Finally, I would like to point out that nothing in this Bill interferes with Section 138, Sub-section (1) of the Education Act of 1921, under which no child can leave school before the end of the term until it is 14 years of age. I ask the House to reject the Amendment and to trust the local authorities to do the right thing for each child in each case.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. E. EVANS: I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Crowder) saying he was anxious that the Bill should be permissive. There was a good deal of compulsion involved on an earlier point this evening, but when we tried to make it permissive, we failed to get the hon. Member's support. He also said another thing which rather surprised me. He said he was in favour of giving local authorities laxity and latitude.

Mr. CROWDER: I corrected the word "laxity" to "latitude."

Mr. EVANS: There is, of course, a very great difference between the two. We are willing to give the local education authorities latitude, and it will be given, but we do not want to give them laxity, and the reason why we object to giving them laxity is because laxity is a bad thing, from the educational point of view, for the local authorities and for the children. The hon. Member said we must consider the child. Yes, but we must not consider the particular child. We must consider the child generally, and we have to consider the effect of this Clause upon the wellbeing of the children in the schools generally, not the wellbeing of a particular child. The Amendment tries to incorporate some regularity and some uniformity into the administration of education when the Bill becomes law. A good deal of complaint has been raised against the policy of raising the school-leaving age on the ground of administrative difficulties, but this Bill, by reason of the attempt to create exceptions arid exemptions, will raise administrative difficulties at least as great as any difficulties which are being created by the policy of the raising of the school-leaving age.
It is said that the Amendment next on the Paper, in the name of the President

of the Board of Education, will meet the circumstances of the case. With great respect, I think his Amendment is about the most objectionable form of words which can be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. He proposes to say "owing to exceptional circumstances." If there is one thing which ought to be impressed upon the ordinary citizen of this country in recent years in regard to legislation it is the undesirability of introducing into an Act of Parliament words which may be interpreted in one way by one set of persons and in another way by another set of persons. The object which I imagine the Movers of the Amendment now before the House have in mind will not be in any way achieved by the words incorporated in the President's Amendment. From the educational point of view, it is silly not to impose the natural period for the termination of a boy's or girl's education, which is the end of the term. That natural period ought not to be departed from in the loose language which is to be found in the next Amendment.
Above all is the principle that we should give the teachers a. chance. Let them have a chance of carrying on their schools with some continuity. The task of the teacher in an elementary school is not an easy one. It is very trying to his patience, and when he sees the possibility of encouraging a particular pupil to reach a higher sphere, it is very discouraging to him to find that pupil suddenly, in the middle of the term, taken away from his class; and there is also the psychological effect of that removal on the other children in the same class. I believe that the President of the Board of Education, as President, ought to accept the Amendment now before the House.

7.42 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to stress the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Crowder), that there may well be delay in the granting of the exemption certificate, a delay for which the parent of the child and still less the child itself are in no way responsible. I take it that it is because there may be administrative delays in the granting of exemption certificates that my right hon. Friend is ready to open, very slightly, a door through which


the child may pass in a particular case. It seems to me that this Amendment introduces a new administrative feature that may very well be an uncertain one as to the date of its operation, and that you might easily have the case of a job which had been offered in the holidays not being able to be entered upon until the next term had begun because of the delay in the granting of the exemption certificate. Therefore, I oppose the Amendment, because I think it is necessary to keep some loophole open, though I hope it will he a small one, in order not to disorganise the school.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I do not think the last point made by the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) is quite as strong as she appears to think it is. Even where a child has a prospect of employment in the next term, there is nothing to prevent a local education authority fixing a date in the holiday so as to allow the child to leave school in that period. I rise, however, to support the point which my hon. Friends have made on the educational grounds. I wonder why it is that the Minister is so against the precedent laid down for him in the Acts of Parliament of 1908 and 1918. It was there laid down specifically that if a child's fourteenth birthday fell at a date during term, that child was not entitled to leave school until the end of that term. I can only believe that the ground for insisting upon that condition was an educational ground, namely, that there should be no break in the term in which the fourteenth birthday happened to fall. It was the educational ground that made Parliament take that line in 1918. That is exactly the principle which we are trying to embody in our Amendment. Like other hon. Members, I have had a fairly extensive experience as a teacher and I know, and hon. Members even without teaching experience must feel, that it is most disturbing to have a number of children who may be leaving a given class at different times in the course of the same term.
There is another side of this matter to which I would direct the attention of the Minister. One of the great merits of the proposal to raise the school-leaving age

is that it is to be associated with reorganisation. The content of the education is to be changed for children between the ages of 11 and 12, and if children are to be allowed to leave indiscriminately, anyhow, during the course of the term, the educational damage will be all the greater in consequence. The Minister seems to recognise some merits in the contention which we make, and he therefore proposes a form of words which he has placed on the Order Paper. There is, however, a great demerit attached to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal because the words are so vague. Anyone can read anything into them.
I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman in introducing a Bill like this should be so wedded to these loose phrases. No one knows what he means by "beneficial employment." No one knows what "domestic hardship" means. Then there is another phrase, "exceptional circumstances." Exceptional circumstances may cover a whole host of things. Probably the Minister has in mind exceptional circumstances in the home. If, therefore, he is not able to accept our form of words—we shall have to vote for our own Amendment—and on the assumption that we are beaten, will he consider using the words "exceptional family circumstances," so as to limit it purely to the conditions of the family, and not to allow extraneous occupational circumstances to be interpolated? I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will accept our Amendment, because we are convinced that on purely educational grounds all the argument is in favour of our proposition rather than his.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: In discussing this Amendment it is well that we should keep in our minds the provisions of the Bill as it is now drafted, and also the Amendment which I propose to move. There are many things which have been said by hon. Members opposite and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J Withers) with which I completely agree. I realise the difficulties of the teacher as a class diminishes, and the effect on the pupils as one by one they see their little fellows disappearing into the outside world; but those things have nothing to do with the circumstances we are now discussing. The hon. Member for


Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) says that we must not allow children to leave indiscriminately, anyhow. How can he suggest that any local authority, primarily charged with the statutory duty under the words of this Clause and with the addition that I am going to move, would allow children to leave indiscriminately, anyhow, in the middle of a term?
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment recognised that the door, as he called it, was open only a very slight way, and he pleaded that it would be very much easier for the local authority if we closed the door altogether and did not allow them to exercise a discretion in the matter. I make special mention of this point because certain newspapers in the course of the campaign which they have conducted against the Bill have made references to this particular point, an important one, and on every occasion they have studiously left their readers under the impression that no safeguard whatsoever exists in the Bill as it is now drafted, or as it is proposed to be amended, and that any parent can claim exemption for a child whenever its birthday falls, and without having to wait until the end of the term. Hon. Members who have studied the Bill and those who attended the Debate in Committee know that statement to be untrue. They know that very strict rules are laid down for the exercise of the discretion of the local authority. It is narrowed down to this point: Should there be any circumstances whatsoever in which a child may be allowed to leave before the end of the term, or are there exceptional cases in which the local authority ought to have a discretion to allow a child to leave if they desire to exercise it? In a matter of this kind it is desirable to avoid too great a rigidity or the refusal of an exemption in circumstances which would create in the mind of the parents of the child a sense of grievance, which the local authority would like to avoid, and which for the sake of the administration of the Act it is much better that it should be avoided.
Let me put the sort of case that I have in mind. There is the case, for instance, of the child who during the holidays makes an application for employment. That application during the holidays comes up before the local authority who, perhaps for the purpose of some inquiry such as an inquiry by a medical officer

into the child's health, puts back the application to another meeting until the information is obtained. It may be that the next meeting falls in term time. When the application comes before the authority they are satisfied with the information and are perfectly prepared to grant the application. If the information had been before them a week before they would have granted the application, and if they had granted it the child could have gone immediately to the job. Now, because of their own act in demanding further information, the child has to wait, perhaps, three months before getting exemption. I cannot believe that there is any administrator who would not want discretionary power to meet that kind of circumstances, or to meet circumstances which may well arise in neighbouring areas whose term times happen to differ. I read a letter the other day from a very well known education administrator, who has been opposed to the Bill as a whole, who said that this kind of discretion should certainly be reserved for the local authority.
There is the other case, which does not arise very often, but it sometimes turns up, and if you cannot meet it, it is likely to cause a sense of injustice. It is the case of exceptional opportunity to obtain a job of which you could say: "If the child gets this job, it is not an ordinary routine job, but one which will really give the child an opportunity not only of permanent employment but a real advance." Yet that job turns up a few weeks before the end of the term and the employer is not able to give notice. A few weeks later the term ends and the child can then get exemption for a job which cannot offer nearly as much opportunity, and the exceptional job so far as that child is concerned has had to go vacant. It is no good saying that the job will be filled by another child, perhaps by some child over 15. You will never satisfy the child or the parents of that child who have seen that unique opportunity pass. There is also the case to which the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) referred, the case of exceptional circumstances in the home, where some sudden family disaster may make the authorities wish they had a discretion of this kind to exercise.
I cannot accept the Amendment that has been moved, because the two cases to which I have referred, the exceptional


job and the purely machinery delay, are cases which would not be covered by the Amendment and which ought to be covered. The case of the exceptional family circumstances I am anxious to meet. The case of the sudden demand from industry, no. I do not regard that as coming within the purview of the Bill. We do not want to see the system of the ordinary recruitment of industry at the end of the term destroyed. That system is for the benefit of everyone, the employer, the child and those who have to administer education. If I thought that this Clause, strictly limited as it is, would do that, I should not be proposing it, but I am convinced that it will not do that. I am convinced that the local authorities will administer it as it is intended to be administered. It is a discretion to meet exceptional cases, and I believe that in giving the local authorities that discretion to meet exceptional cases it will enable them to do away with grievances which might otherwise arise, and enable a smoother working of the administration of the Bill, without having any effect upon the system of end-of-term recruitment which we all wish to see preserved.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. LECKIE: Although my name is associated with the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I was not aware of the concession which the Minister has now made. Having listened very attentively to all the speeches and the reply of the Minister, I do not think that we should go wrong in accepting his assurance and adopting the Amendment that he proposes. All educationists are agreed as to the vital importance of preserving terms in school and not allowing exemptions to come in and break up terms, but there are conceivable circumstances where it may be desirable to give some discretion to the local authorities on this point. The Minister having met us in this way, I think we ought to meet him in the same generous spirit. I feel that we can trust local authorities in this matter. The Clause, with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make, safeguards the position and although it may be difficult to get a legal definition of the words "owing to exceptional circumstances"

I think that when local education authorities get together and take a common sense view of the question, there will be no difficulty in putting that phrase into force. Therefore I have decided to support the Minister in this matter.

8.1 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: This is a difficult question, and I strongly agree with the President of the Board of Education that it is unfair to argue the point against his position as if the only alternative was that we are to allow children to go away any old time during the term. As far as employers have got into the habit of recruitment I hope it will be encouraged. Clearly the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put in the Clause are intended to have a definite meaning, and to limit the number of exemptions given during term time to quite a small proportion. But there are a number of agricultural employers who have no idea of trying to take on boys of any particular type; they just ask for a boy, say that they want him, and I am rather afraid that these saving words of the Minister, as he hopes them to be, "owing to exceptional circumstances" will be given a rather wider interpretation, and will mean the exceptional circumstance that the child has been offered a particular job on a particular date. That is the exceptional circumstances, and it will be so interpreted in a good many cases.

Mr. STANLEY: The right hon. Member cannot seriously contend that the fact that a child has been offered a job on a particular date is an exceptional circumstance.

Sir F. ACLAND: It may be interpreted as an exceptional circumstance so far as the child is concerned. The employer will argue that unless he can get this boy when he wants him he will have to employ some other boy. It may be, therefore, an exceptional opportunity for that child, and it will be so argued unless exemption is given at the date when the application is made. We all know the difficulty about the teachers. From the point of view of the children in the class, although there will not be a very considerable diminution in the number in the class during the term, if there is any dribbling out, the rest of the class will have their eyes on the door and will be wondering whether they cannot get out as well. The Bill is


going to be difficult to administer in big rural counties. It will have to be done by sub-committees. There will have to be a sub-committee in the area of each attendance officer, and it should be fully representative of the different areas. The right people in a big rural district are not very easy to get together very frequently, but if we can get into the routine of having these cases prepared by the attendance officer and then considered by the local committee in full attendance at certain definite times, the work will be done well. If there are to be a few extra applications dribbling in at any time, the work will not be done so well, nor will the people be so regular in their attendance on the sub-committee. The whole machinery of the work to be done by the attendance officer, considered by the local committee and then forwarded to the education authority, will be complicated.
One has to consider the educational machinery of the authorities as well as the machinery of the class, and so far as the machinery of the authorities is concerned there will be greater simplification and greater efficiency if the applications are concentrated to take effect from the end of the term. I hope the Committee will consider this matter. If it is known that you can get children only at the end of the term, employers will soon fall in with it and will realise it; whereas if there is any possibility of "exceptional circumstances" they will always be trying to argue exceptional circumstances, and local education authorities will not know where they are.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. MESSER: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has mis-stated the exact position of the administration in this matter. My experience of a public authority indicates that any educational committee would prefer not to have the responsibility of deciding what are exceptional circumstances. As a matter of fact, the Debate in the House seems to indicate that we cannot agree as to what is exceptional. Anyone who has had any experience of local government work will realise that at the present time there is immense pressure on those who occupy responsible positions by parents and children to release them before the end of the term, and that pressure will be exerted in far greater measure when the

school-leaving age is raised. The consequence will be that we shall have candidates for local authorities chosen not because of their ability but because of their weakness in giving way to the applications of parents who want their children to leave school, and one can foresee that education authorities will be trying to find out what are exceptional circumstances. As a matter of fact on a committee of which I am a member we have something now of that nature in regard to a regulation that people can be granted a sum of money in excess of the rate laid down, in exceptional circumstances. The committee does its best to find what are exceptional circumstances, if it likes the applicant.
The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Crowder) does not realise the danger of his proposition. He asks that local authorities should be given latitude to do whatever they like. The county council may be the education authority for one part of an area, and the urban district council or borough council the authority for another part of the area. Their education policies may be at variance with each other, and in that case it may be possible for the children under one authority to be able to get exemptions and the children under another authority be unable to do so, if we accept the suggestion of the hon. Member. Also the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) seemed to be putting forward a very dangerous plan. As far as I understood his argument he suggested that not only in this instance, but generally, exemptions should be controlled by the local authority. The teachers themselves prefer to know the number of children they are to teach until the end of the term.

Mr. ORR-EWING: The hon. Member has rather misunderstood my argument. I said that there might be exceptional cases where it would be to the disadvantage of the child, to the parents and also to the employer, if the child was not released. The question whether a child should or should not be released can only arise, as regards the education authority, if the employment is proved to be suitable or not. That is the only case in which a local authority can give a ruling.

Mr. MESSER: I thought the hon. Member was suggesting a general release


by local authorities. The point I was making was that a teacher is not one who is just pumping knowledge into the heads of children. He is one who is planning a course of work, which takes into consideration the period under which he is able to do the work in view, and it would be impossible for teachers to do their work successfully if, during the term, there was a general exodus of pupils from the class. And there is also this point, that if a child knows that it will not be able to leave until the end of the term it will make the best use of the time, but if there is always the vision of the great escape by the creation of exceptional circumstances, its mind will be unsettled and its capacity for study will be weakened. I want to appeal not for the exceptional child in exceptional circumstances, but for children in the general sense. I feel that if the Amendment is not accepted we shall not improve the Bill. I do not think that the proposed Amendment of the Minister means very much, but if the Amendment is accepted we shall do something to make the Bill a little better measure.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I had not intended to take part in the discussion, but I have listened to arguments which have affected me with something approximating to disgust. There is no concern whatever for the children on the part of hon. Members opposite in any of their arguments on this matter. The Minister says that if a child can get a particular job which means a career it is no use saying that another child of 15 can get it, because it will not satisfy the child which has to do without it. If exemption between terms is not allowed, then the child of 15 will not get the offer of the job. In every part of the country we have various social services and institutions providing technical and other training for children of 15 and 16 years of age. They are forced to attend these institutions and officers go to their homes and threaten their parents if they do not attend. These children cannot get jobs, and yet hon. Members talk about exemptions between terms as though they were concerned with the children or their parents. There are plenty of children aged 15 idle at the present

time. An hon. Member said that we had to give justice to the children and their parents, and another hon. Member talked about hardship in the family. What do these arguments amount to? They are the quintessence of hypocrisy. The real object is to provide cheap labour for the employer.
How are we to feel when we hear the argument that the children must get out of the schools because of hardship in the family coming from the very people who impose the means test on the family? I cannot understand how anyone can have the hypocrisy to come forward with such an argument. It is the people who are behind this Bill and these exemptions who are responsible for the hardship in the family. Where is the justice to the child or the parents in taking the child away from school before the end of the term? The whole thing turns on the fact that if the employer cannot get the child out of school at 14 years of age between the terms, he will have to pay a bigger wage to a child of 15 years of age who is already idle. Hon. and right hon. Members could go with me to any district in the country and they would find any number of such children idle. Whatever hon. Members opposite may do, let them not try to make out that they are concerned with hardship in the family or the welfare of the children. I heard the Noble Lady the Member for Western Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) speaking about leaving the door open a little, but I know from the discussions in which the Noble Lady took part in the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills that she would push the door open in every class of school, from infants upwards, to allow the employers to get the children out and make a profit out of them. If hon. Members opposite are concerned about hardship in the family, instead of making exemptions between terms let them remove the hardship from the family. I ask the House not to be taken in by any of these arguments. This releasing of children between terms hast1e object only of providing cheap labour for the employer. Therefore, I ask that the Amendment be supported, and that there be no exemption between terms for any children.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to 'the,' in line 32, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 116.

Division No. 206.]
AYES.
[8.20 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Munro, P.


Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Albery, I. J.
Gibson, C. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Gledhlll, G.
Orr-Ewlng, I. L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Glucksteln, L. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Apsley, Lord
Goodman, Col. A. W.
peake, O.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Penny, Sir G.


Assheton, R.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grldley, Sir A. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grlmctou, R. V.
Pethcrlck, M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grltten, W. G. Howard
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Pllkington, R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guy, J. C. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Radford, E. A.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Blinded, Sir J.
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Boulton, W. W.
Harbord, A.
Rathfbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hartington, Marquess of
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Harvey, G.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Rickards, G. W. (Sklpton)


Bull, B. B.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford u.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Burghley, Lord
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Butler, R. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Rowlands, G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cary, R. A.
Hopklnson, A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salmon, Sir I.


Channon, H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salt, E. W.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Christie, J. A.
Hunter, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jackson, Sir H.
Scott, Lord William


Cobb, Sir C. S.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Selley, H. R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Joel, D. J. B.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lfst),


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unlvs.)
Smiles, Lieut. -Colonel Sir W. D.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwlch)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Latham, Sir P.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Crooke, J. S.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leckle, J. A.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Crossley, A. C.
Lees-Jones, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Culverwell, C. T.
Levy, T.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Davies, Major G. F (Yeovll)
Liddall, W. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Denvllle, Alfred
Llewellin, Lieut. -Col. J. J.
Strickland, Captain w. F.


Drewe, C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lyons, A. M.
Sutcllffe, H.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfleld)
Tasker, Sir R. 1.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Taylor, vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Duggan, H. J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Tltchfield, Marquess of


Eales, J. F.
McKle, J. H.
Touche, G. C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Magnay, T.
Turton, R. H.


Eckersley, P. T.
Maklns, Brig. -Gen. Ep
Wallace, Captain Euan


Ellis, Sir G.
Mannlngham-Buller, Sir M.
Ward, Lleut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wardlaw- Milne, Sir J. S.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Markham, S. F.
Wells, S. R.


Entwlstle, C. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. p. (Tamworth)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hides, Sir H.
Moore, Lieut. -Col. T. C. R.
Wlndsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel G.


Flndlay, Sir E.
Morelng, A. C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fleming, E. L.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Wragg, H.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.



Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, W. S. (Clrencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Furness, S. N.
Muirhead, Lt. Col. A. J.
Captain Hope and Captain




Waterhouse.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Barr, J.
Burke, W. A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Batey, J.
Cape, T.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Bellenger, F.
Cassells, T.


Adamson, W. M.
Benson, G.
Charleton, H. C.


Ammon, C. G.
Bevan, A.
Chater, D.


Astor, visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Broad, F. A.
Cluse, W. S,


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bromfleld, W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.


Barnes, A. J.
Buchanan, G.
Cocks, F. S.




Compton, J.
Hopkin, D.
Parker, H. J. H.


Cove, W. G.
Jagger, J.
Parkinson, J. A.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Potts, J.


Daggar, G.
John, W.
Qulbell, D. J. K.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Rlley, B.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ritson, J.


Ede, J. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Rowson, G.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Frankel, D.
Klrkwood, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Gallacher, W.
Lawson, J. J,
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Gardner, B. W.
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Glbbins, J.
Logan, D, G.
Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle, E.


Grenfell, D. R.
McGovern, J.
Tinker, J J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'shro, W.)
MacLaren, A.
Vlant, S. P.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Griffiths, J (Llanelly)
Macmlllan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Westwood, J.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Marklew, E.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hardle, G. D.
Messer, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Montague, F.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Flnsbury)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, S r R. (Newton)


Hicks, E. G.
Muff, G.



Hills, A. (Pontelract)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hollins, A.
Paling, W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr Mathers.

8.29 p.m.

The ATTORNE - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, after "case," to insert "owing to exceptional circumstances."
I think this Amendment was included in the discussion on the previous Amendment, and it is probably unnecessary for me to add anything to what has already been said concerning it.

Amendment agreed to.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, at the end, to insert:
 "which may not he more than forty in any one week nor before the hour of eight in the morning nor after the hour of six in the evening.
The granting of exemptions under this Clause is subject to certain considerations, and the first consideration which is laid down in Sub-section (4) is:
the nature and probable duration of the employment, the wages to be paid, and the hours of work.
We propose that there should be a limitation upon those hours of work and the limitation which we submit is twofold. First, we say that the hours should not exceed 40 per week, and, secondly, that they should not be before eight o'clock in the morning nor after six o'clock in the evening. The point raised by the Amendment is familiar and it is hardly necessary to discuss it at length, but lest it should seem that we

attach no importance to it, I wish to state briefly the case in support of it. As regards the question of a 40-hour week, we are living in times when the proposal of a 40-hour week for adults has become a familiar subject of discussion. I know that the Government have yet to come to a conclusion upon the adoption of a 40-hour week for adults, but public opinion internationally is moving in that direction. If a 40-Imur week is regarded as desirable for adult people, how much more should that be the case in respect of children of the lender years of 14 to 15? I do not think [need dwell upon the merits of the proposal in favour of limiting the hours of work of these children to 40 per week.
I turn to the other part of our proposal, namely, than; these hours should not be before eight o'clock in the morning nor after six o'clock in the evening. Here again we are touching upon a subject of common public discussion at the present time. The revelations of Sir John Orr have recently directed our attention to the very serious condition of the children of our country, both in school and elsewhere, and in particular to the physical condition of those children. For children of the ages of 14 to 15, eight o'clock in the morning is sufficiently early to be at work and six o'clock in the evening is sufficiently late. It is now a popular thing to emphasise the necessity for physical recreation. It has become fashionable in the


highest quarters to urge that facilities in this respect should be made available to young people. How in the world are these young people to avail themselves of facilities for physical recreation unless their hours of work finish, at least, at six p.m.? As to the starting hour of eight a.m., I cannot speak for other hon. Members but, for myself, I find eight a.m. sufficiently early. Others may speak for themselves, but if that hour is early for me, then I suggest it is sufficiently early for children from 14 to 15. The case for the Amendment is so familiar and, I think, so overwhelming, that I do not think I need press it any further.

8.35 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I support the Amendment because I moved a similar one in Committee, and I want to emphasise the importance of it from a different angle. The Bill provides that to an exemption certificate can be attached a requirement for education and attendance at a continuation school or an evening institute—an important and vital provision. If the provision in the Amendment is attached to exemption certificates some of the objections to the Bill in its present form will be removed and it will be an important contribution to continued education after entrance into employment. Anybody who has had experience of continued education of young people knows that the difficulty is that those who have been at work for long hours in a factory or workshop are incapable of getting any real advantage from the education they are given. I have seen in many schools, after young persons have been persuaded by their employers, or through the zeal of local education authorities, to go to continuation classes, that the constant difficulty has been to keep up the attendance because the young people complain, after long hours in a factory or workshop, that they are too tired to take any real advantage from the classes.
My experience is that these evening classes can do much good if we can get regular attendance. Great work is being done all over London and the great provincial cities in evening institutes, but. if this work is to develop and if attendance is to be a general rule, we must limit the number of hours during which children have to be in an office or workshop. To apply the 40-hour week

generally to exempted children would be to do a great work for the whole system of continued education, and it will give a great stimulus to the whole organisation of evening schools which have taken so long to build up. I am sorry that the Minister is not in his place, although I am not sorry that the Attorney-General is here, because I have always found him very sympathetic, adaptable and willing to learn. I should like to take him to some of the evening institutes in the East end of London to see the fine work that is being done under great handicaps. I am sure that he would be convinced about this apparently harmless Amendment.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. ORR-EWING: I find myself in some agreement with much that has been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I have had an opportunity of visiting some of the places where the work to which he has referred is carried on, and my experience has been such as to lead me to wish to encourage that work in every possible way. It not only provides an opportunity for the better assimilation of knowledge, but I think there is a certain spirit in those classes which is of extreme value to the younger generation. I feel grave doubts, however, whether I could support an Amendment of this type in this Bill. We are asked to believe, and I do believe, that this is a Bill dealing with education. If we examine the Preamble and the Debates that have taken place in Committee, we find that the attention of all Members has been contemplated on the question of the education of the individual child. I do not believe that we would be right to include in an educational Measure an Amendment which really should be dealt with in some other Measure governing the hours of employment of children and young persons. It may be that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) finds it inconvenient to rise before 8 o'clock. I agree with him on that point, but it is not a thing for which we can legislate in an educational Measure.
Though I feel that the majority of Members would be in agreement with the general principle which has been put forward as regards the limitation of hours of work of young people, I am not clear why these particular hours have been put


forward, because I understood that other hours had been agreed upon for the employment of young persons. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I speak subject to correction, but I certainly understood that the evening and morning hours mentioned in the Amendment were not the standard hours. However that may be, I cannot see that it would be right to include in an educational Measure a provision which would govern the hours of employment outside education. If we have to deal with that problem, let us face it in a Measure which deals with the employment of children who have been exempted from school. This Bill is not the right place to do it. Surely those who are considering the exemption of children from school attendance and the question of a particular child for a particular job, will have to be governed in their consideration by the existing law regarding the employment of children at the particular age at which they are to be exempted. It would be wrong and illogical for us to put in the particular hours of work for any industry. If the Amendment is to be considered seriously, it does not go far enough and we should have to go into much greater detail. The majority of the House would be in favour of a rigid regulation of the employment of young persons. I am in favour of the spirit of the Amendment but I cannot feel that we should be doing right in including the regulations of employment in an Education Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. COVE: The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) has stated that he has great admiration for these institutions and apparently would like children to attend them. He has nothing but praise for them, but he refuses to- take any steps whereby the children shall have an opportunity of attending them. He has words of sympathy—

Mr. ORR-EWING: I made it perfectly clear, I hope, that I did not feel unwilling to take steps to make it possible for children to attend these institutions—very far from it; but what I did say was that this Bill was not the right vehicle by which we should proceed in that direction. We should give effect to our will in that direction by some other means.

Mr. COVE: I can only tell the hon. Member that when I was a lad I was brought up in Wesleyan Methodism, and in those days it was always emphasised from the pulpit that the day of salvation was now. It is now that the hon. Member has his opportunity. He is prepared at some time, somewhere, in some distant future, to do all this, but not now. I would remind the hon. Member that he is entirely mistaken about the character of this Bill. This is not an Education Bill. If it were a real Education Bill many of the Amendments which we put down would have been entirely unnecessary. This is a Bill which theoretically raises the school-leaving age to 15.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot now debate the Bill.

Mr. COVE: I am not debating the Bill. With all respect, I was just mentioning that this is a Bill which theoretically raises the school-leaving age and then grants exemptions for those who can find beneficial employment. If the hon. Member will look through the conditions which govern beneficial employment he will find that they are entirely vague, a collection of words which can be interpreted by one authority in one way and by another authority in another way. All the provisions lack definiteness and preciseness. Here we are asking for something definite, something that the local authorities can understand. Here is a direct instruction which they can apply and of which they will know exactly the meaning. All the other conditions are very vague, they are meant to be vague, they are meant to be interpreted—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better leave the other conditions out of account.

Mr. COVE: With all respect, I am bound to mention them in order to enforce the argument that here the hon. Member has a chance to support something which is clearly defined, something which, on his own admission, is absolutely essential for the education of these children. At that age children who work for long hours cannot take advantage of the educational facilities offered to them. It would be cruel to impose educational activities upon them when they have worked long hours. Here


we are asking the hon. Member to translate that ton of sympathy which he has into a little ounce of practical effort on behalf of the children by going into the Lobby with us on behalf of the Amendment.

8.50 p.m.

The ATTORNE-GENERAL: The hon. Member who moved this Amendment stated, what I think was true, that the arguments on it were developed at considerable length in Committee upstairs, and the point as he put it is one that is very familiar to Members on all sides of the House. I, therefore, hope that I am consulting the convenience of the House if I rise at a fairly early stage in the discussion to indicate what are the views of the Government on the Amendment. It has been quite clear to all of us who have taken any part in the discussions on this Bill that hon. Members opposite and the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) do not like the exemption provisions, but I have had a very satisfactory experience of the logicalness and fair-mindedness of hon. Members opposite, and I am sure they will agree that on this Amendment we are not discussing the merits or demerits of exemption, but that the Amendment must be considered in the light of the principle underlying the Bill that there shall be exemptions for beneficial employment, subject, of course, to certain conditions. I think those are the surroundings in which this Amendment falls to be considered.
It is obvious that it is open to any local authority, in the exercise of its power to decide whether or not to grant an exemption certificate, to have regard to the hours of work and, in the case of any particular employment, to say, "We do not regard this as beneficial because the hours of work are too long to enable the child to take advantage of the opportunities for evening education" It is quite open to any and every local authority to set a standard even higher than that which is in the Amendment, if it so pleases, in the case of any particular child or group of children. On the other hand, it would be quite wrong, once the House has approved the principle of exemptions for beneficial employment, to introduce a. rigid provision with regard to the hours of work such as would rule out of consideration certain

employments which might well be beneficial but in which the hours of work would be greater than 40 a week. That is why I quite understand that anyone who wants to drive a coach and horses through the exemptions provisions of the Bill should support this Amendment as a wrecking Amendment to that part of the Bill, though I am not suggesting that anyone has done so.
But while I pay my tribute to the logicalness and fairmindedness of hon. Members opposite, once you concede the principle that it is legitimate for local authorities to say, "Here is an opportunity of employment which may be beneficial to the child's future," it would not be right to insert a rigid provision which would exclude from their consideration a large number of employments in which the hours which the child of 14 to 15 would be asked to work would be over 40 a week.

Mr. GALLACHER: Can you suggest any?

The ATTORNE-GENERAL: Take the Shop Hours Act. Two years ago this House approved legislation which at the end of this year will make the maximum hours to be worked by boys and girls between 14 and 16 years of age, 48 hours a week. That decision was taken by this House two years ago.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: They were young persons between 14 and 18.

The ATTORNE-GENERAL: Well, that would include those between 14 and 16. In the years from 1926 to 1929 a number of factory Bills were introduced by hon. Members opposite in which 48 hours a week was the period of employment for all persons in employment—those of 14 years and upwards. An hon. Gentleman in the Debate last night made an appeal to us on this side not to quote what was done by the Labour Government between 1929 and 1931 as precedents for all that we did. I do not want in any controversial spirit to dig into the past, but it is fair to point out that when hon. Gentlemen opposite introduced their Bill they took 48 hours as the figure for persons of 14 and over who were in employment.

Mr. COVE: We had a Bill.

The ATTORNE-GENERAL: I am talking of 1927, 1928 and 1929. If the


House accepts the Amendment, that would rule out a very large number of opportunities of employment which might properly be considered beneficial by local authorities. The Bill will not come into operation for three years. The Government have promised to bring in, during the next year, a Factories Bill laying down hours of work for children from 14 to 18, or whatever ages the House may decide. Before the present Bill comes into active operation, hon. Members will have been able to consider what limitations it is proper to impose upon employers in respect of the very class with which we are dealing in this Bill.
There has been discussion as to whether the local authorities may be entrusted properly to administer the Bill. Our education system depends upon proper administration by the local authority, and we provide them in the Bill with a direct pointer, in Clause 2 (4 a)The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) would be the last to suggest that local authorities do not properly consider matters entrusted to them by this House.

Mr. COVE: The whole point of the attack is that the Government are putting upon local authorities an impossible task, and are imposing upon them burdens which the local authorities ought not to be asked to bear.

The ATTORNE-GENERAL: I think this is a perfectly proper task to place upon the local authority, in respect to the considerations which they have to have in mind in deciding whether a particular employment is beneficial employment or not. They are given a direct pointer by this House to consider hours of work as one of the factors which must be taken into account. The Government trust the local authorities to give proper consideration to hours of work. When one couples with that fact the fact that the Government have promised that a Factories Bill will be brought before the House before this Bill comes into operation—[Interruption.] That will be the proper Bill in which hours of work should be considered, and I advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Will the Factories Bill deal with the hours of labour of children on farms?

The ATTORNE-GENERAL: I was not saying what the provisions of the Factories Bill would be, but only that it will be the proper place in which to deal with hours of work, not oily for farm children, but for all children; and that the Factories Bill will be before the House prior to the coming into operation of this Bill.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. OLIVER: I hope that hon. Members will not be swayed by the blandishments of the Attorney-General. His is, indeed, a master mind for providing appropriate occasions, but they are never the occasions when the particular Bill is under discussion. A few weeks ago, we introduced a Bill for the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. The Attorney-General, while sympathetic to the Measure, used the same blandishments, and stated that that was not the proper occasion; the proper occasion was when the Workmen's Compensation Bill was introduced. Last Friday we introduced a Workmen's Compensation Bill. Still sympathetic, the Attorney-General said that that was not the proper occasion to deal with the problem. The proper occasion was some other time. The Attorney-General delights us with the phraseology in which he invites us. He is extremely sympathetic. He says that a Factories Bill is to be introduced which will be a much more appropriate occasion than this Measure to deal with the hours of child labour.
We are dealing with the youngest people employed in this country, the children who leave school at 14, and if there must be control of hours of labour, surely those are the British subjects whose hours of labour shout I be controlled; and what more appropriate occasion can there be than the consideration of this Amendment, for children w ho leave school for the first time? The hon. Member who preceded the Attorney-General and spoke about 40 hours per week labour for children, was very sympathetic to the Amendment, but he thought it would not be a good idea in this Bill to limit the hours of labour of children. I may be wrong, but I think that wren the old School Board issued labour certificates for children who were working half-time, the education authorities recognised the principle of the limitation of hours of labour of children leaving school. That goes


back for 30 or 40 years, and, surely, what could be done then might be done in 1936.

Mr. 0RR-EING: In that particular case it was an arrangement in which there was to be a definite combination of education and work, and the hours of education and the hours of work were limited. That was a very specific case, which can hardly be regarded as comparable with the present case.

Mr. OLIVER: This Bill attempts to blend education and employment; hence the exemptions which are included; and I should have thought it very appropriate that some attempt should be made to see that, when a child left school and entered the labour market, there was some control over the hours that the child should work. If children are to take advantage of the educational facilities that are now afforded by night schools and so on, it is right that they should not exhaust their energy or absorb 40 hours of their available time before they can take advantage of such educational facilities as may be in existence. I think that this Amendment is one of the best that has been proposed if this part of the Bill must go through, and I hope the House will support it unanimously, so that we may make the Bill something to be proud of.

9.7 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I must say that, charming and persuasive as the Attorney-General was, he was not very convincing. He said that the Government were going to bring in a Factory Bill, but all Governments for the last 10 years have been going to bring in Factory Bills. But even if the Government do bring in a Factory Bill, it, will not cover some of the children whom we are trying to protect. The President of the Board of Education knows that there are 300,000 children in unregulated trades, and the Government, when they brought in the Children Act, said they would bring in a Bill to protect those children in unregulated trades. That Bill has not been brought in, although every Government since 1925 has promised to bring in such a Bill. This Bill, after all, is an Education Bill, and surely it must be the desire of the President of the Board of Education, and of the Government, that those children who are taken out of school at 14 and put into

trades should get educational facilities, I have been telling the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) that he ought to be speaking on this subject, because he talked very convincingly two or three years ago about educational facilities for children after leaving school. If that is the point of view of the President of the Board of Education and of the House, as I think it must be, no one really wants children to stop all education at 14 and go into jobs that employ them for 48 hours a week. Not only are they going into such jobs, but, until we have a Bill to control the employment of children in unregulated trades, they will go into jobs where they are employed for 72 hours a week. I could give such cases, and the Minister knows of them; they have been given time and again in this House. We find children leaving school at 14 and going into jobs where they work longer hours than their parents, and there is nothing in the Bill to stop that.

Mr. STANLEY: The local authorities have power, in granting exemptions, to consider the conditions with regard to hours.

Viscountess ASTOR: But we know that they do not do it. They have had it for years with regard to the employment of children in unregulated trades, but it is permissive, and they have never done it. Now is the Minister's chance to bring in an Education Bill—

Mr. STANLEY: I do not want to interrupt the Noble Lady, but I have a vivid recollection of the Committee stage of the Bill to which she is referring, and the great enthusiasm with which she urged an Amendment which was to give the local authorities this power.

Viscountess ASTOR: And did they get it?

Mr. STANLEY: Yes.

Viscountess ASTOR: And what has been the result? Not one of them has used it. Can the Minister show me a single local authority that has limited the hours of children in unregulated trades? That is exactly my point. It is no use hon. Members saying that they feel deeply about this matter. If this Amendment is accepted, it will make it impossible for children at 14 years of age


to take jobs which will employ them for more than 40 hours a week. I am certain that, if hon. Members were to go back to their constituents and say they have voted for an Amendment that made it impossible for children to be exempted from school at 14 in order to go into a trade which would employ them for more than 40 hurs a week, they would get the backing of every right-thinking person in their constituencies. I see the tragedy of it. These children go to night schools, but they simply cannot do it. Only the other day I came across a boy who had gone into one of the big, smart hotels. While he had been in another job, where the hours were shorter, he had been attending my classes, but now, although he was getting on so well in the class, his hours are so long that he cannot continue.
It breaks one's heart to see this going on, and it is not necessary. The Minister knows that, if he accepted this Amendment, it would protect children who, even under a Factory Act, would get no protection. I beg him to accept the Amendment, and I beg hon. Members to vote for it. It is our job to protect the children, and this gives us a chance of doing so. Do not let hon. Members believe it when they are told that the Factory Bill is going to cover all the children. It is not going to cover those who most need protection, that is to say, the children in unregulated trades. Up to the present time, when the local authorities have exempted children, the great majority of them have gone into unregulated trades—as messenger boys, lift boys, van boys and so on. I sometimes wish that, before hon. Members came to the House to discuss a Bill like this, they would take the trouble to see these things for themselves. If they did, we should have a much better Bill. Attractive as is the bedside manner of the Attorney-General in this House, it is not going to convince many of us that this is not a good Amendment.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. THURTLE: I was interested to hear the Noble Lady say that she had knowledge of the bedside manner of the Attorney-General. I thought he was not a member of the medical profession, but apparently I am mistaken. The Attorney-General said that we should wait for the Factories Bill to deal with this question.

I wonder whether this is the kind of Government that we can trust, whether this is the sort of Government which gives its word and never breaks it? I seem to remember that this Government has made promises in regard to other legislation which it has not exactly kept. We have heard some talk about regulations dealing with unemployment. They have been promised for quite a long time. But the Government do not seem to be in a great hurry to redeem that promise. Then we have a Coal Mines Reorganisation Bill. That made a very brief appearance in the House, but it has disappeared, and we have no knowledge at all as to when it is to come back to us. So when the Attorney-General says, "We are going to introduce a Factory Bill possibly next Session," we are entitled to be a little sceptical as to whether the Government will really keep its word.
The suggestion that we should pass the responsibility for this on to the local authorities is not fair. The House is not discharging its responsibility when it suggests that the local authorities should be left to deal with a matter like this. All that we say in the Bill at present is that they should have regard to the hours to be worked by these children. We ought to be a little more explicit in that respect. We ought to tell them what we regard as reasonable hours and what we regard as a reasonable period in the day during which these children are to work. When a boy or girl starts on his or her first job, it is a very big event in life. It is the first stage in that long road towards the Old Age Pension, and there is no respite until the Old Age Pension is reached. There is a special responsibility on us not to make their first job too laborious or arduous. We ought to put in some specific limitation of the hours of work. The Attorney-General said that, if we insist on this provision, it would make it difficult for these boys and girls to get particular kinds of jobs, possibly jobs in shops and jobs as errand boys and office boys. If we are going to concede to employers of labour the special privilege of employing mere children of 14, they ought to be prepared to modify the provisions of employment in order to suit them. These things are not fixed so that they cannot be changed. If they like, they can alter the hours from 48 to 40. If the present starting time is 7 o'clock, they can alter


it to 8 o'clock and, if the finishing time is 7 or 8 o'clock, they can bring it back to 6 o'clock. If they want to employ these mere children, we have a right to ask them to modify their conditions accordingly.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: The Attorney-General said that we can leave this to the local authorities, but it seems to me that, unless we are prepared to give them a definite instruction, the local authorities will have no discretion in the matter at all and the question of beneficial employment will be governed by the practice existing when the Bill comes into operation. I have believed all along, and I am more convinced than ever as I listen to these Debates and read the Debates in Committee, that this Bill is governed entirely in its outlook and its range by the dictates of employers in regard to feeding industry with cheap labour. A pledge was given at the General Election to protect these children at the tender age of 14. The Inspector of Mines for the North of England has been making an analysis of the returns of accidents in the mines. He says:
The main points that emerge from an examination of the statistics are that the accident rates for boys employed at mines in the counties of Northumberland and Durham are much higher than the rate for boys employed throughout the country as a whole, and that they exceed greatly the accident rate for persons of all ages in the Northern division. This high rate cannot be regarded with equanimity
We work the two-shift system in the North of England and these little things are going to work till 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. Are they in a fit state to safeguard their lives from injury at that hour? I do not want to stress altogether the humanitarian point, but it is our duty in this day and generation at least to safeguard our boys if we cannot keep them at school until they are 15. What is the position in regard to the accident rate? In 1933, between the ages of 14 and 16, there were one killed and 352 disabled for more than three days, in 1934 there were one killed and 513 injured, and in 1935 three killed and 534 injured; and yet here we can with equanimity consider that it is beneficial employment to allow these children to be going to work at hours ranging from 1 until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. I make this appeal, that they shall

not work before 8 o'clock in the morning or later than 6 o'clock in the evening. For these reasons I support the Amendment.

9.25 p.m.

Major J. HERBERT: I must confess that fundamentally I have some sympathy with the object of this Amendment. No one of us wants to see children working in unregulated trades, unnatural hours or under bad conditions, but hon. Members opposite are sometimes a little unfair to the people on this side of the House. They always seem to think that employers want to grind down their employés, whereas the great majority of employers want to increase the prosperity and improve the conditions of their workers. The object we ought to aim at is to try to get good conditions of work for all workers—not only children. This Amendment deals with only one type of worker, and I do not know that it is really practicable to deal with these children in this way. Under the previous Clause great care has been taken to see that children can be exempted only for approved employment, so that the unregulated trades or bad conditions would not be approved by local authorities. When a child reaches the age of 15, it will not come under this Amendment. If a child is exempted at 14 years 9 months, for three months he comes under one Amendment, and after that he comes under quite a different provision, while a child during his holidays, whether he is over or under 14, would not be safeguarded by this Amendment.
We ought all to look far wider than this. We should not try to bring in factory legislation in the Education Bill. The Attorney-General has stated that a new Factory Bill will be brought in by the Government. That is the type of legislation in which to deal with all types of work, and not by an Amendment to a Clause in the Education Bill. This Amendment does not deal with every child but with a few children of a specified type between the ages of 14 and 15. This Amendment has a charming ideal, but is impracticable and therefore it should not be supported. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider that we cannot always have our ideals. We are all looking forward to a certain stage of employment, and this Amendment will rather hamper the general condition of employment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: The object of the Bill, as I understand it, is that a child shall attend school until 15 years of age, and it is possible for a local authority to grant an exemption if application be made and a case can be made out. Where one year is being granted to the employer under the exemption clause, we have a right to consider whether it is beneficial employment or not. No employer of labour will apply for the laziest lad in the school. The cultured, brilliant, clever boy, the boy who will be most useful, will be the lad for whom application will be made. Only for the best boys in the schools will the employer be anxious to make application. While I am in agreement with the Minister that he may be doing all that is possible to give a boy a chance in life, it has got to be a place where a boy will have a fair chance, where there is continuity of employment from school to old age, and where the prospects will be good.
Everybody who has any idea of the speeding up in industry to-day knows that any boy or girl, leaving school at 14 years of age, nimble of finger and adapt at machines, is, with the various systems of mechanisation now in use, absolutely played out after 40 hours' work in a week. It is 40 years for a child. There is no sleeping at work to-day. In every workshop to-day there are timetables. Every shop has its system of regulation. There is clocking on and off. The capacity of each child is measured day by day to see what its output is. The most remarkable thing is that week by week they discharge the children who are not able to keep up the speed. Those children come back again, not to the labour market, but to school.
I put it to the Minister, anxious as he is to give each boy and girl a chance in life, that under modern conditions, with this exemption granted, unless the Members of this House rationalise the hours of work children will be able to receive no education whatever. It is the most ridiculous thing under the sun to say that when children have to do their very best in this mechanised age you can send them to evening classes after their work. It is the most nonsensical thing that ever was uttered in the House of Commons to say that children who have been speeded up over

a 40-hour week are competent then to go home, get washed and go to the evening classes with the zest which is so essential to their welfare.
I am fully convinced, speaking from my knowledge of night schools, that the children in my district—and I know many thousands of them—are speeded up in the workshops in which they work at the age of 14 years to such all extent that body and soul are absolutely tired. When the Bill comes into operation, unless you regulate the hours of the labour, the exemption Clause will be detrimental to the best interests of the Education Bill. I am at one with the Minister in desiring that a boy or girl shall have the greatest opportunity possible, and that the nation will be the richer by the education it gives. Unless a regulation of this description is brought into operation, the Bill will be ineffective in regard to the future of the child.

9.36 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I have very great sympathy with hon. Members opposite and in all parts of the House who do not like to be put off by the answer which all of us have made from the Front Bench in our day, that this is not the appropriate time. It is always annoying to be put off with the statement of jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day, I cannot help sympathising also with hon. Members who wonder whether the promised Factory Bill is ever going to eventuate. Moreover, without any relation at all to the question raised by my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) of half-time education for those exempted from school attendance, I should feel it very difficult to vote against the Amendment, but clearly a 40-hour week is quite incompatible with anything like day continuation school education as an alternative to full-time schooling.
I sincerely hope that as a result of the Amendment which the Minister has put upon the Paper immediately following the present Amendment, local authorities are, in fact, going to limit the hours of labour and impose conditions as to day continuation schools. I am very much afraid that if you put any limit of hours of work at 40 as the one specific provision in the Bill on this point, you will deter local education authorities who otherwise might consider a system of day continuation schools


from so doing. It is one of the greatest surprises of my life that no opponent of this Bill throughout these proceedings has put down an Amendment embodying the principle which I frequently advocated in the old days, of two years' day continuation education as an alternative to one year's extra school. That is, of course, entirely incompatible with this particular Amendment.
I would ask hon. Members who support the Amendment to consider what its nonsensical effect will be. I admit, and I grant it out of hand, that, if you are trying to enforce an impossible and nonsensical situation which would oblige the Government to bring in a Factory Bill imposing regulations as to the hours of labour of juveniles, it would be a very good way of doing it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let us do it!"] If it is the hon. Member's principle of legislation, because you distrust the Government, to put an unworkable provision on the Statute Book in order to force the Government to bring in something later—if that is the hon. Member's principle of legislation and idea of doing business, I frankly admit that he may be justified.

Mr. THURTLE: rose—

Lord E. PERCY: Please let me conclude my argument. Consider what the actual situation would be if you passed this Amendment. At the present moment there is no statutory provision preventing a child under 14 at school from working far more than 40 hours a week during the holidays. Moreover, there is nothing on the Statute Book preventing a child from working during the school holidays between 6 and 8 in the evening or before 8 o'clock in the morning. What would be the result of this? A child of 14 can start work at 6 o'clock in the morning and he can still be at work at 8 o'clock in the evening. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] The hon. Member says "Shame," but you are not altering it. This Amendment does not alter it. Then when he has passed the age of 14 and gets exemption, suddenly he may not work for more than 40 hours a week, and he may not work after 6 o'clock in the evening. A few months afterwards, when he attains the age of 15, he may work 72 hours a week, and work at almost any hour in the morning and the evening. Could you have confusion worse confounded than that?
I come finally to the point made by my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth, that, in fact, local education authorities will not use the powers which the Minister proposes to grant to them under his Amendment next on the Paper. Does my Noble Friend realise that all the by-laws which at the present moment make the hours of child labour in the holidays tolerable in Plymouth and in every education area are by-laws passed by the local education authority under the Education Act which they are not forced in any way to pass? Why should local authorities who are to undertake the definite responsibility of exempting a child from further school attendance not exercise in respect of that child the same discretion as they now exercise in the case of all children during their school lives by the passage of bylaws and the imposition of conditions which will limit the hours of labour far more scientifically and effectively than they would be limited by this Amendment? The local authority at Plymouth has done this, and my Noble Friend knows that it has, and every local authority in the country will make use of these powers.
I should vote for this Amendment if it did not create a wholly impossible situation with regard to the variations in permissible hours of labour between the ages of 14 and 16, and I would advise hon. Members opposite to join with me in making sure that the Government do at least introduce a Factory Bill, and more than a Factory Bill, an Employment of Young Persons Bill regulating the hours of labour of all young people under the age of 16 at least.

Viscountess ASTOR: I should like to know how we can join with the Noble Lord in making the Government do that.

Lord E. PERCY: It might be done if my Noble Friend would show a spirit of co-operation rather more than she usually does.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. BARR: I would like to call attention to the fact that we are not only considering the hours of labour that a child of these years might work, but the hours of labour that it might work alongside of certain educational activities that the exempted child is pursuing. That opportunities are to be afforded to the child for further education is definitely


laid down in the Clause, and we are not only laying down what will be a suitable number of hours for a child to work, but for a child to work who is already largely occupied in educational activities. That, I think, has a bearing upon what fell from the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) in regard to children working while on holidays. I think it is quite evident that if we had sought to bring in a larger Amendment which would have limited the hours of children during holiday time, it would have been ruled out as beyond the scope of the Clause; and in any case the children on holiday have not the further burden of their educational activities.
I would also reply to what fell from the learned Attorney-General, that only two years ago this House passed a Measure allowing young children to work for 48 hours a week, that that was unaccompanied by study, and we are considering now what is a reasonable period alongside certain specified and approved study. With regard to what was said as to what may be in a forthcoming Factory Bill, I can conceive a situation when the very argument that has been used tonight, that this is an Education Bill and that therefore you cannot bring in hours of labour, might apply in an inverted sense if we were to leave over the consideration of these children that are receiving part education until that time. It would be said, "This is a Factory Bill, and you cannot bring in these educational considerations here." Suppose you find in your Factory Bill an exact limit of the hours that a child should work in ordinary circumstances, that does not meet the case of the child who, in addition to working these hours, is supposed to be carrying on education also. Then, in regard to the Factory Act, I would recall what happened during a former Government, when we were constantly promised a Factory Bill. I refer to the Government between 1924 and 1929. Questions regarding a Factory Bill were as constantly put forward then as are questions regarding the Unemployment Regulations now, and the Federation of British Industries asserted their authority, and we were told, even by some on the Government side of the House, as it then was, who were very favourable to that Factory Bill, that it had to be withdrawn.
One point more. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mrr. Orr-Ewing) said that these figures had been arbitrarily fixed at eight o'clock and six o'clock. These would be very appropriate hours for various reasons in my own country, and I think they would be here also, but it does not need a great stretch of the imagination to see why 40 hours are put in. It is well known that in the International Labour Office at Geneva most of the nations have been desirous of putting on their programme the discussion of a convention for a working week of 40 hours for adults. It is true that our Government have opposed that, but when the great mass of the nations at Geneva are fixing on 40 hours as suitable for adult labour, it is surely a very small modicum to consider that 40 hours would be a sufficient time of work for young children, especially when they have to carry on certain educational activities at the same time. For these reasons I strongly support the Amendment.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. MARKLEW: I have been listening to the discussion all the time and turning over the various arguments to find out how they would apply to my constituency. I represent a textile constituency, which will be affected very seriously indeed by the passing of this Measure. It happens to be one in which there is certainly no surplus of labour at the moment, if there is not actually a shortage so far as some kinds of skilled textile work are concerned. Indeed, in adjoining constituencies, though not in my own, that shortage is so great that, resort is being had to the expedient of importing juvenile labour from the North-East Coast for the purpose of training in the mills and factories of that locality. Bearing in mind the circumstances, that at any rate there is an insufficiency of juvenile labour in the neighbourhood for the predominant industry there, I ask myself what will be the attitude of book education authorities towards applicants for exemption in circumstances like that, and I cannot do other than come to the conclusion that they will certainly be tempted very strongly to grant exemptions on a wholesale scale. That will happen in my neighbourhood, but in other neighbourhoods you may find more enlightened authorities, labouring under less pressure from the industrial magnates in their own locality, who will net be disposed to grant


exemptions quite so readily, with the result that we shall have one locality competing against another and indeed complaining against another because of the attitude taken up by one education authority providing a sufficiency of juvenile labour to exploit in one area and an insufficiency as a consequence in another area.
That does not seem to me to be in accordance with the principles on which this Bill is supposed to be based. I am making a confession when I say that I believe it is the desire of the Government that there should be as few exemptions as possible, but surely they can see that if the exemptions are to be limited, some discouragement rather than encouragement must be given to those local educational authorities who may have strong temptations to grant every application for exemption that is put forward. Again, looking at the matter from the point of view of those in my constituency, that constituency is one that, although it is experiencing rather better times at the moment so far as employment is concerned, has suffered very severely indeed over the past three or four years, with the consequence that the workers there are depleted of any reserve resources. They are poor now, and although they have more work than they had formerly, their conditions of employment are so very bad that even while fully employed they are not earning a sufficiency of wages to keep themselves in decency and comfort. Even when fully employed they may be described as being very poor, and the temptation on their part will be all the greater to apply for their children to be exempted. In short, all the circumstances will be of such a character that not only will exemptions be readily granted, but they will be greedily asked for in localities where it is extremely desirable from the point of vew of the children that they should not be granted, because these poorer classes of parents, having experienced the poverty of years—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now arguing the merits of exemptions, or otherwise. That is not the Amendment before the House.

Mr. MARKLEW: I was trying to link the point up with the question of the hours that will have to be worked. Possibly I may have strayed, in my

enthusiasm for the interests of the child. Let me come to the question of the hours. I was trying to point out that the condition of the child, the condition of the parents and the pressure upon the authorities will be such that the interests of the child will be injuriously affected, unless some limitation is placed upon the hours which the child may be allowed to work. It has been suggested by the Noble Lord opposite that there is something in the nature of impracticability to limit the hours of child labour to 40 a week. That reminds me of the fact that I have never heard from the benches opposite one single speech which has attempted to argue that 40 hours is an excessive number of hours to work. I have heard lots of people say that if they could see the practicability of limiting the hours to 40 a week, they would very gladly join with us in supporting the proposals embodied in our Amendment. We have plenty of sympathy, but I am afraid that we shall receive very little expression of that sympathy when it, comes to the giving of votes.
I am speaking from experience, and a little experience is worth a ton of theory. I know something about the way in which these matters can be worked. Surely, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility in the industry with which I am particularly concerned, the textile industry, to provide an opportunity for the child to get reasonable education in the time when it is not at work, combined with a moderate number of hours in employment for the purpose of earning a little wage. That is not outside the scope of possibility. The factories are now working six days a week. If we limited the hours to a maximum of 40—there is no suggestion in the Amendment that the hours should be a minimum of 40—then I could conceive arrangements being made by employers that would allow them to employ boys and girls, where it was thought necessary or desirable, for the first three days or the last three days of the week, and the remaining days would provide the opportunity which we all desire for them to continue their education, if not in the ordinary way at a day school, at a continuation school. I hesitate to make that recommendation because of the bitter experience in my own life of what half-time labour means. However, I willingly make that suggestion. Not being able to get


all that we desire on these benches I desire to get the best that we can possibly secure. If the Minister will only look at the matter from a reasonable point of view concerning the interests of the child, and not continuously concentrating upon the interests of the employer and the requirements of industry, he will see his way to promise us if not the acceptance of this particular Amendment some similar Amendment that will meet us half way in the direction in which we wish to go.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. E; EVANS: The matter which has received the attention of the House on this Amendment is one which can be dealt with one of two ways. One way in which the Government are dealing with it is the way which is imposed upon them by the nature of the Bill. I have for many years, here and elsewhere, advocated raising the school age, and I am a little surprised that so much of the time of the House on the Report stage should have been spent in connection with an Amendment of this character. This Bill imposes upon the local authority the obligation of determining not only whether employment will be beneficial and not only that they shall have regard to the immediate benefit of the child but also that they shall have regard to the prospective benefit of the child. Where the local authority is called upon to consider the prospective benefit of the child in connection with any employment, that authority is bound to take into consideration the question of paragraph (a), which includes the hours of work. When we remember that we are dealing with children of immature years with regard to employment, then it seems to me that the Amendment is not asking for anything extreme when it limits the hours in the way suggested.
There is another way of dealing with the matter, and that is the way suggested by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). He was good enough to tell the House that he was surprised that nobody who was interested in the Bill had gone to the trouble of putting down, an Amendment to incorporate the principle which he had advocated for years, namely, the principle of two years at a continuation school. There is a good deal to be said for that

proposal, but when I heard the Noble Lord express his surprise I could not help turning to the back of the Bill, where I found that the Bill was not only presented by Mr. Stanley but supported by Lord Eustace Percy, who was a Member of the Government and responsible for the thinking department of the Government at the time when the Bill was introduced. If instead of making that speech to-day he had made it to the Cabinet, he would have clone good service to the country.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: I have been surprised at the inconsistencies of Members on the other side of the House. All their earlier Amendments have obviously endeavoured to lay the emphasis upon the industrial side and have been concerned with employment rather than education. We on this side have endeavoured to place the emphasis on education. Mr. Speaker ruled out an Amendment under which that emphasis which has laid an additional charge upon the rates, but we had a very lengthy Debate and were able to hear expressions from the other side of the House. The statements that have been made by hon. Members opposite clearly indicate that they are certainly not concerned about the child and not concerned about education. They are concerned about the employer obtaining cheap labour and to engage labour for the longest possible time at the cheapest possible price.
One would have thought that the Noble Lord and most hon. Members would have agreed that the younger the child is the shorter should be its working week. One would have thought that even the most retrogressive type of man would have conceived that to have been the most humane thing to do. But deducing from the remarks of the Noble Lord one gathered that it is impracticable for this principle to be applied to children at 14, because they are obliged to work longer hours beyond 15. The substance of most of the speeches that we have heard can be interpreted in those terms. I trust the Minister will appreciate that if he is to obtain the maximum educational value from the children it is essential, whether in continuation classes, in accordance with the administrative work of his Department, or by any other means, that these children must be kept


in the fittest physical state to imbibe the ideas or the knowledge that may have to be placed before them from time to time. It is essential in these days that the tendency should be towards a lower working week, and surely 40 hours per week in this mechanised age is quite enough for any young child to have to work, particularly a child under 15 years of age. In my constituency we are not confronted with the conditions which the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) has outlined, because we are a mining constituency; nevertheless, we are faced with the fact that the young people in our mining areas are going to places like Slough. The Minister certainly ought to prohibit children who are taken from depressed areas working more than 40 hours in any week. When we have 2,000,000 unemployed he ought not to permit employers of labour to exploit small children.
It is high time the right hon. Gentleman accepted an Amendment of this kind or called the Bill a juvenile employment Bill rather than an education Bill. For the whole of the evening we have had

employment stressed time after time, and now that we are endeavouring to limit the number of hours which small children shall work in any industry, hon. Members opposite begin to talk about education. It is impossible for a child to be properly educated in a continuation school if it has to work more than 40 hours per week. The type of speech we have heard to-night is the type that was delivered 100 years ago, in 1840, when children were taken from their homes into factories upon a relay system, and housed in institutions. It is high time hon. Members opposite should realise the gravity of this problem, that small children can be sweated by employers and made to work for any hours they like for a mere pittance, because it is impossible for parents in this time of adversity to resist the temptation to allow their children to be engaged for long hours by unscrupulous employers.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 220.

Division No. 207.]
AYES.
[10.10 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddi'sbro, W.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrlson, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Itbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Naylor, T. E.


Amnion, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hurdle, G. D.
Parker, H. J. H.


Attlec, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Potts, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Prltt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Qulbell, D. J. K.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Unlv's.)


Bellenger, F.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rlley, B.


Benson, G.
Hollins, A.
Ritson,


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sllkin, L.


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipiey)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhlthe)


Cassells, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Klrby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Compton, J.
Klrkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H-ghfn-ie-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Crlpps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davles, D. L. (Pontyprldd)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Davles, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Vlant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lunn, W.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Westwood, J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacLaren, A.
Williams, O. (Swansea, E.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Macmlllan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercllffe)


Gallacher, W.
MacNelll, Weir, L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Marklew, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibbins, J.
Mathers, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, J.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Whiteley.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gledhill, G.
Penny, Sir G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Glucksteln, L. H.
Percy, Rt Hon. Lord E.


Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr, P. G.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Albory, I. J.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Petherick, M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Plckthorn, K. W. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Pllklngton, R.


Assheton, R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Alter, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Grlmston, R. V.
Porrltt, R. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grltten, W. G. Howard
Radford, E. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ralkes, H. V. A. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Bainlel, Lord
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Hannah, I. C.
Rankin, R.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmln)


Blrchall, Sir J. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bllndell, Sir J.
Harvey, G.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Kaslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Helpers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Heneage, Lleut.-Colonel A. P.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buehan.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brltcoe, Capt. R. G.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'ndtrry)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Holdsworth, H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Holmes, J. S.
Rowlands, G.


Bull, B. B.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rugglcs-Brlse, Colonel Sir E. A.


Burghley, Lord
Kopkinson, A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salmon, Sir I.


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. O. M. (Hack., N.)
Salt, E. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Channon, H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Christle, J. A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Savery, Servington


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jackson, Sir H.
Scott, Lord William


Cobb, Sir C. S.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Selley, H. R.


Colman, N. C. O.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Joel, D. J. B.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lt'st),


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smiles, Lleut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Latham, Sir p.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crltchley, A.
Leckie, J. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Crooke, J. S.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lelghton, Major B. E. P.
Spender-Clay Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Levy, T.
Spens, W. P


Crossley, A. C.
Llddall, W. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'mld)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lloyd, G. W.
Storey, S.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Lyons, A. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Drewe, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Sutcllffe, H.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Macdonald, Capt. p. (Isle of Wight)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Makins, Brlg.-Gen. E.
Taylor, vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Mannlngham-Buller, Sir M.
Titchfleld, Marquess of


Duggan, H. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Touche, G. C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Markham, S. F.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Eckcrsley, P. T.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Irena (Wallsend)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Ellis, Sir G.
Moore, Lieut. -Col. T. C. R.
Wells, S. R.


Emery, J. F.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Emrys- Evans, P. v.
Moreing, A. C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Entwistle, C. F.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Windsor Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.


Ersklne Hill, A. G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Wlnterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fildes, Sir H.
Mulrhead, Lt-Col. A. J.
Womersiey, Sir W. J.


Flndlay, Sir E.
Munro, P.
Wragg, H.


Fleming, E. L.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Furness, S. N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.



Fyfe, D. P. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ganzonl, Sir J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Gibson, C. G.
Patrick, C. M.
and Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.


Glimour, Lt.-col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Peake, O.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out from "authority," to "and," in line 11, and to insert:

shall, as a condition precedent to the grant of a certificate, require such undertakings from the employer as they think necessary—

(a) in connection with all or any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) (b)


and (c) of the last preceding Subsection;
(b) for enabling the authority to satisfy themselves that the employment has not, by reason of any change in the conditions of the employment or for any other reasons, ceased to be beneficial to the child"
In moving this Amendment, it would, perhaps, be for the convenience of the House if I were also able to deal with an Amendment in my name further down, to leave out Sub-section (6). I think the best way in which I can explain the purpose of this Amendment is by referring first to the existing plan of this Bill as far as it deals with the conditions regulating the exemptions and their enforcement. As orginally drafted, the Bill provided for two alternative methods of enforcement. One was to get from the employer an undertaking covering any of the conditions which regulated the exemption, and if the conditions of that undertaking were broken, it was possible under Sub-section (6) to prosecute the employer in the Courts. The alternative method was not to get an undertaking but simply to state what the conditions were, and, if those conditions were not observed, to withdraw the exemption certificate.
In Committee an Amendment was moved, I think by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), to make it imperative on the local authority in every case to exact an undertaking from the employer. The reason which he gave was, I thought, a very good one namely that it was invidious to ask the local authority to choose who were the bad employers from whom they should exact undertakings and who were the good employers in regard to whom they could rest upon the conditions and the power to withdraw the exemption. As an argument against his Amendment, I pointed out that if you made the undertaking mandatory it meant that every employer would subject himself to police-court proceedings for slight infringements of the undertaking and I felt that we did not want the large number of employers in this country to be put in that position. The hon. Member then made a suggestion which I think found general favour in the Committee, namely, that there was no object in retaining the penalty provision and that he and his friends would be prepared to see Sub-section (6) dropped—in which case no police-court

proceedings would be possible—if the undertaking were made mandatory and not permissive.
I undertook to consider that suggestion. I have done so, and I have come to the conclusion that it is the best course to adopt. With the present permissive power, the local authorities might be put in an invidious position and it might be made difficult for them to get an undertaking at all. I therefore consider that the best thing to do is what this Amendment proposes, that is, to make it necessary for the authority to get what undertaking they think necessary in every case. The sanction, if that undertaking is not observed, is to be the withdrawal of the certificate and of the child from the employment. I took the opportunity when drafting this Amendment to insert a new paragraph (b) the purpose of which I may explain. Obviously discussions will have to take place before the appointed day as to the method of inspection which local authorities will adopt. I do not wish to elaborate the various methods they may use or the officers whom they may employ, but I want to make certain that, before those discussions take place we shall know that whatever method be selected, there shall be statutory authority for carrying it out. I achieve that purpose in paragraph (b) by making it a part of the undertaking that an employer shall allow facilities to properly authorised officers of local education authorities to carry out the duties of inspection. I believe that this Amendment commends itself in all parts of the House and I hope it will be accepted without a Division.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has given an account of the discussion on this matter in Committee and has explained why Members on one side were willing, so to speak, to put in the word "shall" in this connection, while Members on the other side were willing to agree to the omission of Subsection (6). I need only say that these two Amendments carry out the agreement which was reached in Committee, and for that reason we shall support them.

10.25 p.m.

Sir F. AC LAND: I took some part in the discussion on this question in Committee, and I should like to thank the Minister for reconsidering the matter and


coming to the conclusion of which he has told us. We agreed that there was a further matter which would deter the employer from breaking the agreement into which he had entered which would make the penalty unnecessary, namely, that his certificate would be cancelled and that the authority would be careful in future to see that he would not have the chance of doing the same thing again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 13, leave out Sub-section (6)—[Mr. Stanley.]

10.26 p.m.

Mr. ORR-EWING: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, at the end, to insert:
(7) Before granting a certificate relating to employment which would exempt a child from school attendance for six months or longer the issuing authority shall require an undertaking from the parent or guardian of the child that a medical certificate will be produced reporting on the health of the child during the fourth month of employment.
We have concentrated in this Bill in dealing with the question of exemptions, on trying to legislate to see that the employment should be beneficial to the child. This Amendment merely implements the suggested undertaking as to the beneficial nature of the employment. It is only fair to say that this Amendment should now be read in conjunction with the new paragraph (b) to which the House has just agreed, because in that provision a duty is laid upon the local education authority as a condition precedent to the grant of a certificate that they should be able to take steps
to satisfy themselves that the employment has not, by reason of any change in the conditions of the employment or for any other reasons, ceased to be beneficial to the child.
This Amendment proposes to carry that one stage further and to supply the means by which the local authority can ascertain whether the employment has or has not been beneficial. I am not proposing to be rigid as regards the actual wording in respect of time, but it occurs to me that a child which has received a certificate of exemption from school and has gone into employment may suffer a state of semi-ill-health owing to the novelty of the situation having worn off by something like the fourth month, when

the natural condition of the child will have become apparent. If the employment is to last for a greater time than six months, which one may call the exempted period, the fourth month would be about the right time for the medical test to be made to ascertain whether the child has suffered in ill-health because of the employment.
I should have liked to have moved the Amendment in a different form in order to arrange that the child should be medically examined at school at the same time as the children who have not been exempted are being medically examined, in order that some fair comparison could be made. Under the terms of the Financial Resolution governing the Bill that would have meant imposing an additional charge, and therefore it would have been out of order, and I have had to choose the only alternative means which I can find to see that there is some medical examination. It seems to me, I use the word advisedly, to be something in the nature of humbug to be so very careful to take steps to see that the employment should be beneficial if we are not prepared to take the step that really matters to prove whether the employment has been beneficial or not.
It might be argued that once a child has been exempted from school the health of that child is not the particular care of the education authority, but more primarly that of the parent. I think it is fair to answer that the child will still be technically under the care of the education authority, because should the employment certificate be cancelled for any reason, and assuming that the child does not enter alternative employment under a new certificate, it will have to return to school, or at least will come under the control of the education authority. It is quite possible, too, that many parents are not fully aware of the physical effects of employment on young children entering industry. I think any hon. Member who has had experience of the employment of children in industry must be aware of many cases in which a normally healthy child has found its way into a type of employment which has affected either its body or its mind very adversely, and in such cases it would he greatly to the benefit of the child if it could be removed from that particular employment, because quite conceivably it might find itself perfectly happy in other employment. I


would urge the Minister to give us some explanation of how he would apply the test of "beneficial" to the employment —apart from the pecuniary reward, and having regard to the physical condition of the child—by any other means than some step such as I suggest; and also to explain why we should not interlock something of what is contained in the Amendment with what is contained in paragraph (b) which we have just inserted.

10.33 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I beg to second the Amendment.
I regard this as an additional safeguard which we ought to insert in the Bill when considering the conditions under which children may be exempted from attendance at school. Although an employer may have loyally observed all the conditions which must be abserved preparatory to the child taking up employment, after the child has been at work for two or three months its health, at that early, transitional age, may not be able to stand up to the strain. Therefore, it is wise to have an additional safeguard of this kind. It may be said that the bringing of these children within the Health Insurance scheme would achieve this purpose, but I think a categorical certificate from the parent would effect the purpose much better.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I fully sympathise with the object which my hon. Friends have, in putting forward the Amendment, but the Amendment is not one which I can accept. The method which they have adopted, owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary draftsmanship, is unworkable. It puts the obligation upon the parent to get a certificate from the doctor, but in a great many cases you cannot expect a parent, who will receive no reimbursement for his expenditure, to get a thorough examination of a child, and the sort of certificate which he would obtain under such a system would hardly be worth the paper it was written on.
I agree that we ought to follow up these children, and not merely decide that the employment is suitable for their health at the beginning. We should make sure that it remains suitable for their health later on. I suggest that I have already taken the proper step

at the moment by inserting the provision in the undertaking to give access to any properly constituted authority for the purpose of inspection. We might, at a later stage, discuss with local authorities how an eye can be kept upon the future health of these children, and what steps can be taken if it becomes apparent that a particular job is proving detrimental to health. There is the further promise that the age of National Health Insurance will be lowered. I fully sympathise with the object of the Amendment, but the method I cannot regard as practicable or workable, and for that reason I am not able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. ORR-EWING: In view of the statement which the Minister has made as to a future consultation with local authorities to decide the steps to be taken in following up the health of the children, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Employment certificates to cease to have effect in certain cases.)

10.37 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, after "effect," to insert:
(a) if the child in respect of whom it was granted to the employer does not enter the employment of that employer within twenty-one days after the date stated in the certificate as the date from which the certificate is to have effect; and
(b)
This, again, is an Amendment to meet a point which was raised in Committee, I think, by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). It concerns the case of an exemption certificate granted in respect of a child where, for some reason or other, the employment has not been taken up. The Amendment ensures that unless the employment is taken up within three weeks of the dating of the granting of the exemption certificate, the certificate will be deemed to have lapsed and will be cancelled.

Mr. EDE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very sincerely for meeting a point which will very considerably ease the administration of the Measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made, in line 7, leave out from "child," to "ceases," in line 8.—[Mr. Stanley.]

10.39 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN, JONES: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(3) If any person notifies the issuing authority that there is reason to believe that a certificate should be cancelled in pursuance of the foregoing Sub-section, it shall be the duty of the authority to direct that inquiries be made, and to cancel the certificate if any condition under which the certificate was granted is not being observed.
In order to assist the Government to get this stage of the Bill, I will detain the House for not more than a minute or two. The purpose of the Amendment is clear from a cursory reading of it. We are anxious that, when a certificate has been issued to an employer in respect of the employment of a child, the conditions on which it has been issued shall be properly fulfilled, and, in order to provide a guarantee as far as possible that the conditions are being properly fulfilled, we have put down this Amendment. Obviously, it will be primarily the duty of the local authority to see that the conditions of the certificate are being fulfilled, but of course in some areas it will be a very big task for the local authorities to keep in touch with every single instance, and therefore we thought it not inappropriate that persons like social investigators coming across instances of obvious violation of the conditions should be able to report them to the local authority, so that action might follow.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: It is quite true, as the hon. Member has said, that the purpose underlying the Amendment is clear, but I am afraid that its actual meaning would be rather more complicated. It is already, of course, under the Bill, the duty of the local authority, having imposed conditions, to see that those conditions are carried out, and, if they are not carried out, to take the appropriate remedy, which is to withdraw the certificate. Even without this Amendment, it would be a clear breach of the authority's duty if, evidence having been given, that a breach was in fact occurring, no steps were taken either to inquire or to enforce the penalty. But the hon. Member will see that the Amendment contains no provision which would safeguard the local authority with regard to at any rate the prima facie

reasonableness of the statement which is made. If the Amendment were passed it would be the duty of the authority to investigate every allegation that was made, however little foundation there might be for it. Anyone who had a grudge against a neighbour could go to the authority and say that he was employing a boy under conditions which he was breaking, and the authority would have to investigate the case at once. The case having been investigated, the same man might make the same complaint the next day, and they would have to investigate it again. I am sure that that is not the hon. Member's intention. The Amendment as drafted would put a quite unnecessary strain on the administration. It is the duty of the authority, as the Bill now stands, when reasonable evidence is brought to them that a breach of the conditions has occurred, to investigate it, and I do not think the Amendment really adds anything to the duty which already exists.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us a little information as to the implications of the Amendment. We thought that, in drafting these words, we had done our best to assist the Government, but I see the point, and should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether more appropriate words could be put in in another place. If that is not possible, I am afraid we cannot ask the House to divide on the Amendment, and accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, after "ceasing," to insert, "by virtue of the provisions of this section."
This is a machinery Amendment. At the present moment it is an obligation on the employer to return the employment certificate when it lapses, but the only importance of that is when the certificate lapses either because it has been revoked or because Vie child has left the employment. We Rio not want to put upon the employer a duty to return the certificate when it has lapsed in the ordinary course because the child has reached the age of 15. I do not think the local authorities will want to receive 1,000 exemption certificates—

Mr. KELLY: Are there going to be 1,000?

Mr. STANLEY: In the country as a whole. According to the hon. Member, there will be 100,000, so I am dividing his estimate by 100.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Supplemental provisions with respect to certificates ceasing to have effect.)

10.45 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, at the end, to insert "and"
This Amendment and the next are preliminaries to an Amendment in my name to Clause 15. The sole purpose is to clear up the position with regard to the minimum age for entering into unemployment insurance. As the Bill was drafted, the position of the child in insurance, if the employment lapsed and he went back to school, was safeguarded by the words that I am moving to omit, but the position with regard to entering into insurance when he got the exemption was safeguarded by the wording of the Unemployment Act, 1935. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) pointed out in Committee that it was inconvenient to have to look at another Act and it would be much better if it was plainly stated in this one. I agreed to do that and the new Sub-section that I shall move to Clause 15 will state plainly that the child comes under unemployment insurance when he gets the exemption certificate and remains under it even though the exemption certificate lapses and he has to go back to school or to take a course of alternative instruction.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am not very familiar with the exact nature of the discussion that took place on the Scottish Bill, but I gather that a concession was made dealing with the number of credits that might be available to a child who became subject to the Scottish counterpart of this Bill. I should be glad, if the right hon. Gentleman finds that there is a difference between the provisions in respect of English and Scottish children, if he will see that English children are placed on precisely the same basis as Scottish children when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. STANLEY: The position is exactly the other way round. Under the Bill as

drafted, English children already enjoy the concession which the Scottish children have only obtained during the Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, leave out lines 8 to 14.—[Mr. Stanley]

CLAUSE 5.—(Power to permit withdrawal from school in certain cases)

10.49 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, to leave out "for such period and."
This Clause grants exemptions to children who are needed for assistance in their homes, as distinct from exemptions for children who are going out into employment. I have discussed these Amendments with the Minister and I thank him for the assistance that he has given me in drawing them up. They arise out of an anxiety which I expressed during Committee as to what was going to be the position of these children, mostly girls, who are given exemption merely because their mothers are ill or their fathers have died and they are needed at home. It is what was called upstairs the "little mother Clause." We were anxious because in the case of the children who are in employment there was a whole Clause consisting of most elaborate provisions by which they are to be protected, provisions which have been added to in this Report stage; but these particular children are not protected by any of the provisions which regulate beneficial employment.
I fully recognise that you could not in practice protect them by the same type of provision, but in their case the exemption could be given to the end of the school term and should then go on from term to term. That will ensure that the local authority has a survey of the children and that the case of the children is brought before its notice at the end of each term. The position may alter. The mother may get well, or the father may marry, and the provision may no longer be necessary. Apart from that, it is essential to make provision that children leaving school should as far as possible be under some kind of organised influence. That in thousands of cases saves them from disaster. Children going into beneficial employment can be brought under organised


influence. These children would be forgotten altogether. It is to prevent that, that I am moving the two Amendments standing in my name.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I had the benefit of discussing the wording of these Amendments with my right hon. Friend beforehand, and I must confess that when I saw the Amendments on the Paper I was struck with the reasonableness of the position laid down. It has always been the case of the Government on this Clause that it is meant to be used for a domestic emergency—the illness or death of the mother—which may not necessarily be permanent in character, or, of it is permanent in character, ought not necessarily to be met permanently by the same remedy. I, therefore, feel that these Amendments, which will not hamper the power of the local authority to grant the exemptions, will ensure that a case is reviewed and that the circumstances are looked into again. If the circumstances no longer exist exemption can be withdrawn, or if they still exist the same remedy might not be necessary. That is fully in line with the purpose of the Government in moving this Clause, and strengthens the administration of it, and for that reason I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 33, at the end, insert:
(2) Permission shall not be given under this Section for the withdrawal of a child from school save for a period ending not later than the end of the school term then current or, if permission is given in the interval between two school terms, not later than the end of the next succeeding term:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall prohibit a local education authority from renewing a permission, if they think fit to do so, and the provisions of this Section shall apply to the renewal of a permission as they apply to the giving of permission in the first instance."—[Mr. Lees- Smith.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Power of local education authority to make grants for enlarging, etc., non-provided schools.)

10.54 p.m.

Colonel Sir JOHN SHUTE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, to leave out "as they may deem sufficient," and insert:

as the authority may in the circumstances of the case under consideration deem sufficient for the purposes of negotiation.
The Amendments standing in, my name both deal with matters which may arise as a consequence of the housing progress in our cities, in connection with slum clearance and town-planning. We visualise that, owing to the matters to which I have referred causing, as they do in one's own city, a complete state of flux, the authorities might not be able to submit to the authority a close, detailed scheme. In the second instance to which I refer in the second Amendment, which I propose to move later, an even more serious position might arise. The authorities, having received a completed scheme and having accepted it, might, when the moment came for its fulfilment, by a last-minute alteration on account of some housing scheme, find it impossible to carry it to fruition.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
In view of the town-planning in the City of Liverpool, where satellite towns are coming into existence, and the change which is likely to take place with regard to schools, it is most essential that these Amendments should be accepted. Hon. Members who come from large towns—and we all have our housing problems—will realise that these are valuable suggestions, and the object is to do everything possible under the Bill to avoid delay.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I understand that for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, you are allowing us to discuss both the Amendments on the first Amendment. The Amendment which has actually been moved is merely drafting in character. It has never been intended that the proposal, the acceptance of which brings the Church schools under the provisions of the second part of the Bill, should be complete in every detail. It must be a proposal sufficient for a local authority to know the part which the Church is prepared to play in the particular scheme of re-organisation. If this new wording makes the position clearer and removes any fear that the proposal must be one for a school down to the last brick and the last bit of mortar. I am prepared to accept it.
The other Amendment is not drafting. It is a new point which I do not believe is likely to arise, but which, I confess, if it does arise, will constitute a hardship, and is not met under the Bill as it stands at the moment. The Church has to submit to the local authorities a proposal which the local authorities must accept before a certain date. The proposal will be based upon the particular town-planning scheme which the authority has adopted at the moment. You might have a situation where a proposal has been put forward which has been accepted by the local authority as being in accordance with the town-planning scheme, and then, after the last date by which these proposals can be put forward and accepted, the town-planning scheme is altered. The proposal for the school, therefore, has to be altered, the time has run out, and the new proposals have not been accepted. That is a position in which the Church would be penalised through no fault of their own, but through an alteration in a town plan, and I am certain that everybody will agree to the acceptance of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 34, at the end, insert:
Provided that if the Board of Education are satisfied that any proposals entertained by a local education authority (whether or not an agreement. has been entered into in respect of them) have become impracticable or undesirable owing to any decision made or action taken before the appointed day by any planning or housing authority the board may, notwithstanding anything in this Sub-section, allow new proposals to be entertained."—[Sir J. Shute.]

CLAUSE. 11.—(Compensation for teacher in certain cases, etc.)

11.1 p.m.

Major Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: I beg to move in page 10, line 42, to leave out "this Section," and to insert "the last preceding Sub-section."
This is merely a drafting Amendment.

Lieut. Commander AGNEW: I beg to second the Amendment.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I think it would be convenient if we discussed this and the next Amendment on the Paper together, because, although this is a drafting Amendment, it is only made necessary by the acceptance of the other. I think

I should probably explain to the House what the point of both Amendments is. It is to meet a point which was raised in Committee. An hon. Member moved an Amendment on behalf of the Churches to make certain that where a grant was repaid, the Churches resumed exactly the same position in regard to the appointment of teachers and other matters as before the grant was made. The only exception, as the Bill stood, to the resumption of that position was the power of the managers under certain circumstances to dismiss a teacher who had been a non-reserved teacher, and when that was being discussed in Committee I said that, although I could not agree to this power being given to the managers, because it was not fair to the individual under the terms of service, I would be prepared to give it if an alternative of compensation were inserted. The object of the two Amendments is to give that alternative compensation.
As far as the details are concerned, hon. Members will see that it will be the duty of the Board of Education to be satisfied that this compensation is adequate, and the way that they will be satisfied as to its adequacy will be that they will satisfy themselves that it is not less favourable than the standard of compensation laid down which the local authority has to pay to a teacher under similar circumstances. I, confess I do not like the Board of Education having to assume the responsibility of saying whether or not a particular compensation is fair, but I was anxious to get a settlement of this, and I am prepared to take the responsibility, which is all I have, of seeing that the compensation offered under this Amendment is as good as the compensation payable by the local authority on the standard laid down. In these circumstances. I think the position of the teacher is fully safeguarded, and I am prepared to accept the Amendments.

Mr. COVE: I think we, too, can agree to these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

11.4 p.m.

Sir J. BIRCHALL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, at the end, to insert:
unless the managers allow him compensation for the loss of his office upon such terms and with such security as may be agreed or as may, in default of agreement be approved by the Board of Education,


but so that the Board shall not approve terms which in their opinion are less favourable to the teacher than they would have been if determined under sub-section (1) of this section.
After what my right hon. Friend has said, it is not necessary for me to add any words in commending this Amendment to the House.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Interpretation.)

11.5 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 13, line 8, at the end, to insert:
(2) For the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, a child, in respect of whom an employment certificate has been granted under this Act, shall as from the date from which the certificate has effect, and notwithstanding that it may thereafter cease to have effect, be deemed to have attained the minimum age for entry into insurance.
This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 16—(Short title, commencement and extent.)

Mr. STANLEY: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this subsection affects the power conferred by section seven of this Act to apply sections two to six of this Act for the purposes of certain by-laws.

This is purely drafting. During the Committee stage Re inserted provisions whereby authorities who were ready before the appointed day to bring into force the period referred to, and it was felt that unless such provision was made it might be considered to be inconsistent with the date of the appointed day as laid down in Clause 15. It is to safeguard the right of authorities to advance the date in their areas that the Amendment is moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the rural district of Eastry, which was presented on the nineteenth day of May, 1936, be approved.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain, Margesson]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.